djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,119
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 21, 2011 22:23:59 GMT -5
I understand what you are getting at, and actually, I would have preferred if less of the stimulus went to shoring up existing state jobs, and more of it went to create infrastructure jobs, (and on works jobs rather than unemployment) ... I feel like a lot of it was wasted band-aiding... and not really making necessary improvments... But mathematically... well... you know... mathematically a positive plus a larger negative still equals a negative, no matter how large the positive is.
|
|
|
Post by lakhota on Jun 21, 2011 22:24:36 GMT -5
I understand what you are getting at, and actually, I would have preferred if less of the stimulus went to shoring up existing state jobs, and more of it went to create infrastructure jobs, (and on works jobs rather than unemployment) ... I feel like a lot of it was wasted band-aiding... and not really making necessary improvments... But mathematically... well... you know... I totally agree. I will only add that Obama had to eat the shit with the honey to get it passed.
|
|
hello fromWarsaw
Senior Member
Hiya! Wake UP!!
Joined: Feb 13, 2011 1:24:04 GMT -5
Posts: 2,044
|
Post by hello fromWarsaw on Jun 21, 2011 22:26:10 GMT -5
Economists (not bought off) agree the stimulus worked. What doesn't work is Pub obstruction, paralysis, and nonstop gloom and doom- not to mention the Pub hoarding of corporations and banks. We can blame Bush for years- check the housing market and his STUPID wars... And here's PBP blaming Obama for what obviously happened under Bush. Link for Zuckerman?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,119
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 21, 2011 22:27:00 GMT -5
I understand what you are getting at, and actually, I would have preferred if less of the stimulus went to shoring up existing state jobs, and more of it went to create infrastructure jobs, (and on works jobs rather than unemployment) ... I feel like a lot of it was wasted band-aiding... and not really making necessary improvments... But mathematically... well... you know... I totally agree. I will only add that Obama had to eat the shit with the honey to get it passed. he has had to eat a steady diet of shit for two years. he is probably so used to it now, it is starting to taste like food to him. not exactly the liberal i was hoping for. not that i ever expected that, honestly. he always struck me as a moderate pragmatist. no wonder conservatives hate him.
|
|
|
Post by floodofsantorum on Jun 21, 2011 22:31:41 GMT -5
So you don't agree that a penny saved is a penny earned?
|
|
|
Post by lakhota on Jun 21, 2011 22:33:35 GMT -5
So you don't agree that a penny saved is a penny earned? Right on!
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,119
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 21, 2011 22:39:37 GMT -5
So you don't agree that a penny saved is a penny earned? i am not a big fan of saving, actually. hoarding does not stimulate growth. i believe in employing capital in such a way that it generates wealth, not burying it in a hole and watching it decompose into basic elements. witness the 30 year road to nowhere in Japan. i DO like Franklin, btw- just not this particular idea of his. having said that, i don't think the terms mean quite the same things in terms of money and jobs. nobody actually creates money (other than the treasury, unfortunately) in the sense that businesses REALLY DO create jobs. therefore, the comparison is not as good as it could be. i think my doctor analogy is better. Doctor Obama in the house!
|
|
|
Post by floodofsantorum on Jun 21, 2011 22:44:14 GMT -5
What about a stitch in time saves nine?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,119
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 21, 2011 22:48:22 GMT -5
What about a stitch in time saves nine? i like that one better. but time can't be created at all. so it is a poor analogy for jobs. don't you like the severed limb analogy, flood?
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jun 21, 2011 22:51:48 GMT -5
Obama came into office in late Jan of 2009.By that time every job created since 2000 had been lost and it was his fault.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jun 21, 2011 22:53:38 GMT -5
Job growth under Bush was worst since WWII Jacksonville Business Journal - by G. Scott Thomas Date: Tuesday, January 20, 2009, 10:01am EST President George W. Bush will leave office Tuesday with the worst employment-growth record of any president since World War II, according to a new analysis by Bizjournals. The nation’s job base grew at an annual rate of 0.28 percent during Bush’s eight years as president – by far the slowest pace for any of the 11 presidents in the postwar era, according to Bizjournals. Bizjournals is the online media arm of American City Business Journals American City Business Journals Follow this company , The Business Review's parent company. The previous low had been set by Bush’s father, George H.W. Bush, with an annual job-growth rate of 0.59 percent. The elder Bush served between 1989 and 1993. Bizjournals used seasonally adjusted data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics to calculate employment-growth rates for the administrations of all presidents since Harry Truman. Each president’s record was based on a comparison of job totals in the final full month served by his predecessor and his own final month. George W. Bush’s span ran from December 2000, when nonfarm employment totaled 132.5 million, to December 2008, when it reached 135.5 million. The administration with the strongest growth rate since World War II was that of Lyndon Johnson, who served between November 1963 and January 1969. Employment increased at an annual pace of 3.74 percent during that period. Bizjournals also looked at five subsets of job growth, with the younger President Bush finishing The worst record until now.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,119
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 21, 2011 22:54:07 GMT -5
Obama came into office in late Jan of 2009.By that time every job created since 2000 had been lost and it was his fault. that might be because this recession was more severe than all previous recessions. when did it start, again?
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jun 21, 2011 22:54:32 GMT -5
If something Obama did actually saved jobs that would otherwise have been lost - then those jobs were created by Obama. Here is another way to look at it: One minute after an employee is terminated, Obama's stimulus kicks in and s/he is rehired. Then the only thing separating created from saved is one minute... Bullhockeypucks.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,119
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 21, 2011 22:55:17 GMT -5
Job growth under Bush was worst since WWII Jacksonville Business Journal - by G. Scott Thomas Date: Tuesday, January 20, 2009, 10:01am EST President George W. Bush will leave office Tuesday with the worst employment-growth record of any president since World War II, according to a new analysis by Bizjournals. The nation’s job base grew at an annual rate of 0.28 percent during Bush’s eight years as president – by far the slowest pace for any of the 11 presidents in the postwar era, according to Bizjournals. Bizjournals is the online media arm of American City Business Journals American City Business Journals Follow this company , The Business Review's parent company. The previous low had been set by Bush’s father, George H.W. Bush, with an annual job-growth rate of 0.59 percent. The elder Bush served between 1989 and 1993. Bizjournals used seasonally adjusted data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics to calculate employment-growth rates for the administrations of all presidents since Harry Truman. Each president’s record was based on a comparison of job totals in the final full month served by his predecessor and his own final month. George W. Bush’s span ran from December 2000, when nonfarm employment totaled 132.5 million, to December 2008, when it reached 135.5 million. The administration with the strongest growth rate since World War II was that of Lyndon Johnson, who served between November 1963 and January 1969. Employment increased at an annual pace of 3.74 percent during that period. Bizjournals also looked at five subsets of job growth, with the younger President Bush finishing The worst record until now. Bush's record was worse at this point during his administration, actually. he didn't add any jobs until his second term.
|
|
|
Post by floodofsantorum on Jun 22, 2011 0:24:27 GMT -5
What about a stitch in time saves nine? i like that one better. but time can't be created at all. so it is a poor analogy for jobs. don't you like the severed limb analogy, flood? I did. What about spare the rod and spoil the child? Do you think that applies to Bush?
|
|
SweetVirginia
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 17:56:15 GMT -5
Posts: 1,360
|
Post by SweetVirginia on Jun 22, 2011 2:19:05 GMT -5
Carter's economic record was actually pretty good, compared to Bush. and yes, so far, Obama's record is worse than Bush. Ah, macro (may I still call you macro?), I should tell you that the "blame Bush" strategy is no longer de rigueur these days. In other words, it's been too long and that dog won't hunt. Suggest you change it up or risk looking like Lakhota, or worse, Warsaw... Yet the "Give Bush credit for bin Laden death" is "de riguer" in your terms? What a joke
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,119
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 22, 2011 9:49:26 GMT -5
i like that one better. but time can't be created at all. so it is a poor analogy for jobs. don't you like the severed limb analogy, flood? I did. What about spare the rod and spoil the child? Do you think that applies to Bush? i have advocated that every living president be tried for war crimes. you can add Obama to the list.
|
|
|
Post by bubblyandblue on Jun 22, 2011 9:54:35 GMT -5
Incidentally, the best way to put an end to all wars is not to begin any.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,119
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 22, 2011 10:04:41 GMT -5
Incidentally, the best way to put an end to all wars is not to begin any. i think that is what the WPA is about. we really should demand that it be used for all armed conflicts.
|
|