Recovery?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

If the reps were in, how do you think they would have done things differently?

eta: I ask this simply because most western nations did more or less the same thing as obama and his administration to lesser or greater success. It seems to have helped somewhat here in Australia although if there hadn't been a stimulus plan, perhaps the results would have been similar. It's very hard to know because it's one of those things where there's really no control group.

Well I don't know about Australia, but in the US it was mis-spent and wasted. Lately everyone is spouting off about the recent gains by GM (Government Motors) but completely and conveniently ignore the fact that the public will never get back 20 billion dollars of the bailout money that was used to rescue the auto industry. We have had numerous programs to bail out the banks and investment groups, while Obama hired them on the side, but nothing to help out the investors or home owners who took it in the shorts. Even his latest political ploy directly effects few.

[Ibby]

Originally Posted by Ibram

If you can show me that the U3 numbers used by Bush DIDN'T discount people who took themselves out of the labor force, you might have a case, Merc.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Oh I have a case. A huge one. It is an election season. Obama owns the failure of the last three years and every bit of the failed economy.... The time of blaming Bush is long past.

That's called a cop-out, mate. Did Bush or did Bush (and Clinton, etc) NOT use the same U3 number, calculated the same way, as the "unemployment rate"?

[Aliantha]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Well I don't know about Australia, but in the US it was mis-spent and wasted. Lately everyone is spouting off about the recent gains by GM (Government Motors) but completely and conveniently ignore the fact that the public will never get back 20 billion dollars of the bailout money that was used to rescue the auto industry. We have had numerous programs to bail out the banks and investment groups, while Obama hired them on the side, but nothing to help out the investors or home owners who took it in the shorts. Even his latest political ploy directly effects few.

So in the US stimulus package(s), no money went to individuals at all? Only to companies?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

So in the US stimulus package(s), no money went to individuals at all? Only to companies?

Mostly to businesses. Individuals did not directly receive money. But they did create some great jobs, at hundred of thousands of dollars per job, at least until the money ran out. A huge waste.

[Aliantha]

Interesting.

Over here, money in the form of cash was given to pretty much everyone. I don't think anyone missed out. It certainly helped keep money flowing through the economy in the right direction and has been labelled a success in some corners.

Others are critical, but that will always be the case. I'm not an economist, so I can't really say, other than that the money we got went mostly to the bank anyway in the form of mortgage repayments and I suspect that was probably the case for many individuals.

[TheMercenary]

Much of the money was widely distributed but it was also given as favors to overwhelmingly supporters of the Demoncratic majority at the time. All the parties do it when they are in power, it just so happens this was the time they held the responsibility for where the money went and they were not shy about who got it.

[classicman]

Merc, you've conveniently ignored replying to this... Care to do so now?

Originally Posted by Ibram

If you can show me that the U3 numbers used by Bush DIDN'T discount people
who took themselves out of the labor force, you might have a case, Merc.

Also,

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Mostly to businesses. Individuals did not directly receive money.

Indirectly, but ...
$300 billion in tax cuts
$116 billion: New payroll tax credit of $400 per worker and $800 per couple in 2009 and 2010.
$14 billion in first time home-buyer tax credits
$15 billion: Expansion of child tax credit: A $1,000 credit to more families
$14 billion: Expanded college credit
$4.7 billion: Unemployment compensation benefits in 2009.
$4.7 billion: Expanded EIC tax credit
$4.3 billion: Home energy credit
$1.7 billion: for deduction of sales tax from car purchases,

But they did create some great jobs, at hundred of thousands of dollars per job,
at least until the money ran out. A huge waste.

Based upon the total amount spent perhaps, but in reality the total was NOT all directed at creating jobs.
Much of it was to stop the hemorrhaging of jobs left over from the previous administration,
another part was an investment in infrastructure, Education, Healthcare, Transportation, Communications and IT development... and on and on... and those INdirect funds described above.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by classicman

Merc, you've conveniently ignored replying to this... Care to do so now?

Also,

Indirectly, but ...
$300 billion in tax cuts
$116 billion: New payroll tax credit of $400 per worker and $800 per couple in 2009 and 2010.
$14 billion in first time home-buyer tax credits
$15 billion: Expansion of child tax credit: A $1,000 credit to more families
$14 billion: Expanded college credit
$4.7 billion: Unemployment compensation benefits in 2009.
$4.7 billion: Expanded EIC tax credit
$4.3 billion: Home energy credit
$1.7 billion: for deduction of sales tax from car purchases,

Cite your source. Let's have a close look at how much was spent on what you say it was spent on, and how much actually got to the people. Even the last one, which I would guess is the cash for clunkers was got a huge F. SO let's take a close look at your source and pick the numbers apart....

Based upon the total amount spent perhaps, but in reality the total was NOT all directed at creating jobs.

BUT that is not how it was sold to the American people and you know it... "Millions of Shovel Ready Jobs!" Bullshit.....

Much of it was to stop the hemorrhaging of jobs left over from the previous administration,
another part was an investment in infrastructure, Education, Healthcare, Transportation, Communications and IT development... and on and on... and those INdirect funds described above.

Great how did that work out from the day he took office. Bush is long gone. Obama owns the last three years.

Wow! look at all the number of great jobs they produced and how much the spent making them! I must be crazy for thinking the pissed our taxpayer dollars away...

http://stimuluswatch.org/2.0/

[classicman]

Again - - - Merc, you've conveniently ignored replying to this... Care to do so now?

If you can show me that the U3 numbers used by Bush DIDN'T discount people
who took themselves out of the labor force, you might have a case, Merc.

Lets burn one strawman before we create any more. One step at a time, k?

[TheMercenary]

Lets look at the U3 numbers under Bush and then under Obama and see if there is a difference.

U3:

http://portalseven.com/employment/unemployment_rate.jsp

U6:

http://portalseven.com/employment/un...00&toYear=2012

Wow! huge difference. Either way all up under Obama. So what's your point?

The fact is that Bush never needed to talk about the U3 or the U6. The fact is that BECAUSE unemployment is up under Obama he needs to talk about the lower value. It has nothing to do with BUSH (again). This is about Obama and the unemployment rate under the time Obama was in office. Bush was not running around spouting off about how low unemployment was with the lower value because he never had to do it. It was not a problem for him at the time. This whole issue about Bush and the U3 vs the U6 is a complete and total Straw man argument just like dragging DOMA and same sex union is a Straw man. You both lose again.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by classicman

Again - - - Merc, you've conveniently ignored replying to this... Care to do so now?

Lets burn one strawman before we create any more. One step at a time, k?

How'd that work out for ya?

I'm just not interested in answering every little pencil dick nuance of a point that someone disagrees with me over, it is just such a waste of time..... but I did it for you.

[classicman]

Wow! huge difference. Either way all up under Obama. So what's your point?

Compare Bush U-3 to Obama U-3 and Bush U-6 to Obama U-6
The differences are about the same.
Compare, like the Am thinker the Bush U-3 to the Obama U-6
and you too can rant and rave all day. Still won't make it a valid argument.
It will just be Bullshit, extremist partisan Bullshit.

[classicman]

OK From your link: We'll use the U-3 (Official)Unemployment Rate
Bush started with 4.0% and when he left it was 7.3% -------+3.1%
Obama started with 7.8% (yep it went up a full 1/2% in one month!)
and continued to rise for 10 months.
and it is currently 8.3% ----------------------------------------+0.5%
Bush's unemployment increase was 6x worse than Obama

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Again from your link: We'll use the U-6 this time
Bush Start 7.1 ----- End 13.5 -----------------------------+6.4%
Obama Start 14.2 - End 15.1------------------------------+0.9%
And Again
Bush's unemployment increase was MORE THAN 6x worse than Obama

Now I ask you ... What is YOUR point?

[Ibby]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

The fact is that Bush never needed to talk about the U3 or the U6. The fact is that BECAUSE unemployment is up under Obama he needs to talk about the lower value. It has nothing to do with BUSH (again). This is about Obama and the unemployment rate under the time Obama was in office. Bush was not running around spouting off about how low unemployment was with the lower value because he never had to do it. It was not a problem for him at the time. This whole issue about Bush and the U3 vs the U6 is a complete and total Straw man argument just like dragging DOMA and same sex union is a Straw man. You both lose again.

THIS, merc, is a straw man. Of course unemployment is up - a lot of jobs were lost before Obama took office, a lot were lost after. Maybe it IS legitimate to blame Obama for the current state of the economy. But THAT IS NOT WHAT YOU SAID. Your argument, or at least your link's argument, is that Obama is actively manipulating the numbers, in a way that is dishonest and, more importantly, specific to his administration to make the situation look better than it is.
That. Is. Flat. Out. False. Obama is using the same (sorta-doctored-overly-rosy) data that has ALWAYS been the "standard" number used to define unemployment rates.

Find me ANY case of ANY president citing ANY unemployment statistic that isn't the U3. ONE SINGLE CASE of ANY sitting president citing anything but the U3 as the "unemployment number". Your argument (as i understand it based on your link) is that using the U3 the way the U3 has always been calculated is not only unfair and inaccurate but something Obama did to skew the numbers in his favor. You have not proven that is something Obama did in opposition to standard Presidential procedure.

[TheMercenary]

Bush isn't running for re-election.