Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Thanks Obama!!

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/110xx/doc110 ... 3-ARRA.pdf



Added1.5-3.5% to GDP that quarter, while cutting the unemployment rate by 0.5-1.1%. Right on target with last years estimates

Most effective components:
purchases of goods and services by the federal government
transfer payments to state and local governments.

Least effective components:
one-time payments to retirees
one-year tax cut for higher income people
extension of the first-time home-buyer credit.

Chirp, chirp, chirp

We shall see how sustained those numbers are. Anytime you dump that much money into the system, the GDP is bound to increase.

As for the jobs number, was that before or after the job loss revision they just did showing there was actually an extra 2 million jobs lost from previous calculations.

Yeah, basically the government paid top dollar for a bunch of project-based (read, one-time) work - so sure the quarter looks better. Now where's the ongoing tax revenue base increase that will be needed to pay off the added debt we took on for this?

Rob Iola wrote:Yeah, basically the government paid top dollar for a bunch of project-based (read, one-time) work - so sure the quarter looks better. Now where's the ongoing tax revenue base increase that will be needed to pay off the added debt we took on for this?

It's called a bubble economy! Learned that one from Kalm

Chirp chirp yourself, scorpio. HA!

RobsPics wrote:Thanks Obama!!

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/110xx/doc110 ... 3-ARRA.pdf



Added1.5-3.5% to GDP that quarter, while cutting the unemployment rate by 0.5-1.1%. Right on target with last years estimates

Most effective components:
purchases of goods and services by the federal government
transfer payments to state and local governments.

Least effective components:
one-time payments to retirees
one-year tax cut for higher income people
extension of the first-time home-buyer credit.

I admit I didn't read the article but 1.5% of GDP is 200B not a small sum. one half of the stimulus is roughly 3% of the GDP.

RobsPics wrote: while cutting the unemployment rate by 0.5-1.1%. Right on target with last years estimates

Stimulus didn't cut unemployment by .5-1.1%. Don't know where you're getting this boloney from. Stimulus hasn't cut unemployment one bit. When the stimulus passed unemployment was 7.6%. Obama said it unemployment wouldn't go over 8.0%. Well, unemployment went way up in 2009'. Dec 08' was 7.2%. Dec 09' was 10%. Even with the drop in Jan, from 10% to 9.7%, there was 20k less people in the work force, which means about half a million people quit looking for work.
http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/unemp ... /19346268/

http://www.epi.org/publications/entry/j ... _20100205/

BDKJMU wrote:

RobsPics wrote: while cutting the unemployment rate by 0.5-1.1%. Right on target with last years estimates

Don't think so. Stimulus hasn't cut unemployment one bit. When the stimulus passed unemployment was 7.6%. Obama said it unemployment wouldn't go over 8.0%. Well, unemployment went way up in 2009'- it hit 10%. Even with the drop in Jan, from 10% to 9.7%, there was 20k less people in the work force, which means about half a million people quit looking for work.
http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/unemp ... /19346268/

http://www.epi.org/publications/entry/j ... _20100205/

Here's their comeback, BDK: "Well, unemployment would have been 12% without the stimumlus package."

AZGrizFan wrote:

BDKJMU wrote:
Don't think so. Stimulus hasn't cut unemployment one bit. When the stimulus passed unemployment was 7.6%. Obama said it unemployment wouldn't go over 8.0%. Well, unemployment went way up in 2009'- it hit 10%. Even with the drop in Jan, from 10% to 9.7%, there was 20k less people in the work force, which means about half a million people quit looking for work.
http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/unemp ... /19346268/

http://www.epi.org/publications/entry/j ... _20100205/

Here's their comeback, BDK: "Well, unemployment would have been 12% without the stimumlus package."

If anyone has that comeback then they're a fucking retard.

I hope you're not trying to hold AZ to that position, BDK. He's merely citing what the national Donkeys would say.

That said, I agree with you, though I probably wouldn't use that kind of verbiage.

AZGrizFan wrote:

BDKJMU wrote:
Don't think so. Stimulus hasn't cut unemployment one bit. When the stimulus passed unemployment was 7.6%. Obama said it unemployment wouldn't go over 8.0%. Well, unemployment went way up in 2009'- it hit 10%. Even with the drop in Jan, from 10% to 9.7%, there was 20k less people in the work force, which means about half a million people quit looking for work.
http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/unemp ... /19346268/

http://www.epi.org/publications/entry/j ... _20100205/

Here's their comeback, BDK: "Well, unemployment would have been 12% without the stimumlus package."

Hopefully not going to fit into the retard definition, but certainly the one place where stimulus money did save jobs was in the transfers to the states who then didn't have to cut spending on various state positions. You can argue whether that was and is going to be a good thing going forward, but that's certainly one short term aspect where the stimulus helped.

As for the other numbers, I have a hard time trusting anything that comes out of the CBO - a perfect example of a garbage in/garbage out group. There's so much tweaking of what numbers and assumptions go into their pronouncements that what they ultimately say is almost meaningless.

I will further clarify my earlier post. Looks like $400b in stimulus didn't increase the GDP at all. If it grew 1.5% of the GDP that is growth of $200 billion on $300 to $400 spent.

GannonFan wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
Here's their comeback, BDK: "Well, unemployment would have been 12% without the stimumlus package."

Hopefully not going to fit into the retard definition, but certainly the one place where stimulus money did save jobs was in the transfers to the states who then didn't have to cut spending on various state positions. You can argue whether that was and is going to be a good thing going forward, but that's certainly one short term aspect where the stimulus helped.

As for the other numbers, I have a hard time trusting anything that comes out of the CBO - a perfect example of a garbage in/garbage out group. There's so much tweaking of what numbers and assumptions go into their pronouncements that what they ultimately say is almost meaningless.

All that did is delay the inevitable. For example in Iowa last year the Democrat controlled legislature and Democrat governor used stimulus money to plug the whole in the state budget to avoid layoff of state government employees and funding to school districts for teachers. This year the money is gone and they are all crapping their pants because the budget has a $1.5 billion deficit. So all the stimulus did was delay the layoffs that are going to come starting July 1.

HI54UNI wrote:All that did is delay the inevitable. For example in Iowa last year the Democrat controlled legislature and Democrat governor used stimulus money to plug the whole in the state budget to avoid layoff of state government employees and funding to school districts for teachers. This year the money is gone and they are all crapping their pants because the budget has a $1.5 billion deficit. So all the stimulus did was delay the layoffs that are going to come starting July 1.

That must have been the universal playbook, for Washington did the same thing. They of course figured out a way to keep the voter initiative of getting approval for raising taxes from being implemented as well.

SeattleGriz wrote:

HI54UNI wrote:All that did is delay the inevitable. For example in Iowa last year the Democrat controlled legislature and Democrat governor used stimulus money to plug the whole in the state budget to avoid layoff of state government employees and funding to school districts for teachers. This year the money is gone and they are all crapping their pants because the budget has a $1.5 billion deficit. So all the stimulus did was delay the layoffs that are going to come starting July 1.

That must have been the universal playbook, for Washington did the same thing. They of course figured out a way to keep the voter initiative of getting approval for raising taxes from being implemented as well.

We're lucky. Our idiot governor has promised no tax increases. He's up for re-election this year and he's getting his ass kicked in the polls. If he raises taxes there is absolutely no chance in hell of him getting re-elected.

hank scorpio wrote:Chirp, chirp, chirp

All the donks must be out spending their government paychecks!

Morons.

AZGrizFan wrote:
Here's their comeback, BDK: "Well, unemployment would have been 12% without the stimumlus package."

Well, AZGriz and BDK, so that is what they are saying now:

It seems their story has changed a little. Christina Romer and Jared Bernstein of team Obama actually did calculations and plotted the results of what they expected to happen. Idiots! In politics, never make any estimates of what your policies will do, people might remember. Looks like the actual results are exactly the opposite of what they predicted would happen. And look at the numbers, it really emphasizes that they do not have a clue about what they are doing!!!
Ref: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 10398.html

I thought that the idea that the stimulus had produced an artificial recovery had already been covered.

oldsloguy wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
Here's their comeback, BDK: "Well, unemployment would have been 12% without the stimumlus package."

Well, AZGriz and BDK, so that is what they are saying now:

It seems their story has changed a little. Christina Romer and Jared Bernstein of team Obama actually did calculations and plotted the results of what they expected to happen. Idiots! In politics, never make any estimates of what your policies will do, people might remember. Looks like the actual results are exactly the opposite of what they predicted would happen. And look at the numbers, it really emphasizes that they do not have a clue about what they are doing!!!
Ref: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 10398.html

That IS priceless.

SeattleGriz wrote:

Rob Iola wrote:Yeah, basically the government paid top dollar for a bunch of project-based (read, one-time) work - so sure the quarter looks better. Now where's the ongoing tax revenue base increase that will be needed to pay off the added debt we took on for this?

It's called a bubble economy! Learned that one from Kalm

Now you're catching on.

I tihnk this is another one of those things that give the impression that they really know the effects of something when they don't really know the effects of something. I didn't read the whole thing but it becomes apparent pretty quickly that there are a bunch of assumptions and unvalidated models involved. In my opinion no economic model can ever be validated, so I'm not saying what they're doing is unprecedented. But I don't think they know what they're creating the impression that they know.

Bottom line: The fact that the CBO produced that report expressing its educated opinion on the effects of the "Stimulus Plan" does not mean we know what the effects were.

I'll tell you what, you could play FOOTBALL on this thread and not hit a donk. Fuckers have run and hid like never before. Even that neo-donk RobsPics can't even come on and defend this drivel he posted...

SeattleGriz wrote:

HI54UNI wrote:All that did is delay the inevitable. For example in Iowa last year the Democrat controlled legislature and Democrat governor used stimulus money to plug the whole in the state budget to avoid layoff of state government employees and funding to school districts for teachers. This year the money is gone and they are all crapping their pants because the budget has a $1.5 billion deficit. So all the stimulus did was delay the layoffs that are going to come starting July 1.

That must have been the universal playbook, for Washington did the same thing. They of course figured out a way to keep the voter initiative of getting approval for raising taxes from being implemented as well.

Same in VA...teachers and state workers are being told layoffs are now unavoidable because there's no more stimulus money...

Unemployment figures could skyrocket in July, August, and September depending on how the various states fiscal years operate...

Col Hogan wrote:

SeattleGriz wrote:
That must have been the universal playbook, for Washington did the same thing. They of course figured out a way to keep the voter initiative of getting approval for raising taxes from being implemented as well.

Same in VA...teachers and state workers are being told layoffs are now unavoidable because there's no more stimulus money...

Unemployment figures could skyrocket in July, August, and September depending on how the various states fiscal years operate...

Wait...you mean, just like auto sales and housing sales plummeted just AFTER the stimulus money thrown at THOSE industries ended?

Wow. Whodathunkit???