CBO Reports that Stimulus Employs 1.4 million to 3. 3 million,

[Velleity]

• Tweet

shaves 1.8% off the unemployment rate.

John Boner still whines about how "All this 'stimulus' spending has gotten us nowhere."

Don't let the facts bother you Observer Boner.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/08/24/politics/main6802248.shtml

[Observer]

1.4 million
Approximate total number of positions to conduct the 2010 Census.
Recruiting and Staffing
3.8 million
Approximate number of people that were recruited to fill positions for 2010 Census operations between 2009 and 2010.
635,000
Approximate number of positions hired for door-to-door follow-up phase in 2010.

[Velleity]

1.4 million
Approximate total number of positions to conduct the 2010 Census.
Recruiting and Staffing
3.8 million
Approximate number of people that were recruited to fill positions for 2010 Census operations between 2009 and 2010.
635,000
Approximate number of positions hired for door-to-door follow-up phase in 2010.

Blah blah. And still you and yours, who drove us into the Great Republican Depression II, have no answer other than to give tax cuts to the top 2% and kill off the part of the middle class that you already missed.

This is positive objective information, that but for the actions of the Obama administration unemployment would have been 1.8% higher than it is now. You have no rebuttal. But for the actions of the Obama administration millions more would be out of jobs. The job situation is still improving, whereas when Obama took over we were losing 700,000 plus jobs a month.

About the last thing you should want right now is a big Republican victory because it will only take away your one and only weapon--obstruction.

[Observer]

Apparently, you didn't read your own link.

The report stated the cost of those jobs was far higher than the administrations projections, and the benfit is to be short lived.

If we remove the temporary and government jobs from the equation, what is left?

FAILURE.

[IM2]

Given Observers rationale, the low unemployment rate during GW Bushs first couple of years was due only to the number of census workers employed.

Any excuse will do.

[Velleity]

Apparently, you didn't read your own link.

The report stated the cost of those jobs was far higher than the administrations projections, and the benfit is to be short lived.

If we remove the temporary and government jobs from the equation, what is left?

FAILURE.

I want to see your "analysis" where you account for those "temporary and government jobs." Pulling stuff like that out of your ass isn't good enough.

Then I want to see you show me exactly what we got for the money we spent. Then I want your analysis of the multiplier effect.

In short I want to see that you know what you're talking about. Unless and until you do that, you're just doing your same old whiny bullshit routine.

I'm waiting.

[Observer]

You are the one claiming the "stimulus" has provided jobs and proven to be of benefit to the economy.

The numbers I provided for the hiring of temporary census workers came straight from the Census Bureau's website.

What I said is that even the CBO recognizes that any benfit gained is temporary and short lived and what little gain there has been has proven far more expensive than anticipated.

If you can provide evidence to refute that, feel free to do so.

[Observer]

Given Observers rationale, the low unemployment rate during GW Bushs first couple of years was due only to the number of census workers employed.

There was no census conducted during the Bush Administration.

You are wrong again.

[Observer]

READ IT AND LEARN SOMETHING

[Velleity]

READ IT AND LEARN SOMETHING

It's funny how your source doesn't say anything at all about the unsupported and idiotic conclusions you stated above.

So the Heritage Foundation doesn't like the CBO's methodology. Okay. Unlike your bullshit, that has some merit and I am in no position to defend the CBO. The Heritage Foundation, of course, is one of your radical right think wanker organizations funded by wackos like John Coors, John M. Olin, and the Scaife family. It's not like you could actually get any more biased than that. It's hardly surprising that you and Heritage are squealing like stuck pigs over this.

Are you going to apologize now for your bullshit in your preceding posts, or are you going to cite something that actually supports your conclusions?

BTW, putting bare conclusions in caps like that--not real impressive.

[Observer]

I didn't draw any conclusions. I posted some figures and referred to some commentary in your own link.

As far as the Caps go... large fingers, small keyboard. Normally, when I do that, I end up backspacing and correcting. This time, I didn't figure it was that important.

Now, if that is all you have to whine about, we can return to the discussion.

[Velleity]

I didn't draw any conclusions. I posted some figures and referred to some commentary in your own link.

You "concluded" that the job improvement was because of the census--a conclusion that bears no relationship to the CBO's assertion about jobs created because of the stimulus. Aside from the fact that your conclusion is a non-sequitur, you have absolutely no support for your idea that the job improvement cited by the CBO is in any way related to census jobs.

You then cited a "conservative" talking point that's been going around about how much this cost for each job. Again this point isn't well taken. The stimulus was spent in a lot of ways. In fact a third of it was tax cuts, so before I bought into your partisan rhetoric I asked you to explain your own methodology.

You utterly failed to do. Instead you posted a link to blog article that cited the Heritage Foundation's predictable "criticism".

Interesting that you would attribute your typing "FAILURE" to fat fingers.

 

This is what you call discussion? I don't call what you're doing here "discussion". I call it making shit up because you're desperate to "prove" your ideology.

[johnhp]

As far as the Caps go... large fingers, small keyboard. Normally, when I do that, I end up backspacing and correcting. This time, I didn't figure it was that important.

From the first guy to jump on a typo as if it is the end of the world.

[Velleity]

From the first guy to jump on a typo as if it is the end of the world.

It wasn't a typo. It was irrational exuberance over the notion that he actually understood something when, in fact, he didn't. He's backpedaling now because he can see that his criticism wasn't well taken.

Of course he can't acknowledge that.

[johnhp]

It wasn't a typo. It was irrational exuberance over the notion that he actually understood something when, in fact, he didn't. He's backpedaling now because he can see that his criticism wasn't well taken.

Of course he can't acknowledge that.

He is an ass.  Let's leave it at that.