Obama 48%, Bush 47%

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?"

[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.