This was the bill that HAD to be passed with urgency...

[AZhitman]

Seven months after stimulus passes, 49 of 50 states have lost jobs.

The table below compares the White House’s February 2009 projection of the number of jobs that would be created by the 2009 stimulus law (through the end of 2010) with the actual change in state payroll employment through September 2009 (the latest figures available).

According to the data, 49 States and the District of Columbia have lost jobs since stimulus was enacted. Only North Dakota has seen net job creation following the February 2009 stimulus. While President Obama claimed the result of his stimulus bill would be the creation of 3.5 million jobs, the Nation has already lost a total of 2.7 million – a difference of 6.2 million jobs. To see how stimulus has failed your state, see the table below.

[AZhitman]

Remember, this is from June 8, 2009.

Obama promises more than 600,000 stimulus jobs

By Brett Blackledge, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama promised Monday to deliver more than 600,000 jobs through his $787 billion stimulus plan this summer, with federal agencies pumping billions into public works projects, schools and summer youth programs.

Obama is ramping up his stimulus program this week even as his advisers are ramping down expectations about when the spending plan will affect a continuing rise in the nation’s unemployment.

Many of the stimulus plans that Obama announced Monday already were in the works, including hundreds of maintenance projects at military bases, about 1,600 state road and airport improvements, and federal money states budgeted for 135,000 teachers, principals and school support staff.

The administration had always viewed the summer as a peak for stimulus spending, as better weather permitted more public works construction and federal agencies had processed requests from states and others.

But Obama now promises an accelerated pace of federal spending over the next few months to boost the economy and produce jobs.

"We have a long way to go on our road to recovery but we are going the right way," Obama said in a written statement prepared for his public announcement of the additional summer stimulus activity. "Our measure of progress is the progress the American people see in their own lives. And until that progress is steady and solid, we’re going to keep moving forward. We will not grow complacent or rest. Surely and steadily, we will turn this economy around," the statement said…

Just how much of an impact Obama’s recovery program had on the pace of job losses is up for debate. Obama has claimed as many as 150,000 jobs saved or created by his stimulus plan so far, even as government reports have shown the economy has lost more than 1.6 million jobs since Congress approved funding for the program in February…

Obama initially offered his stimulus plan as a way to put people back to work, a promise that 3.5 million jobs would be saved or created. The administration’s predictions that unemployment would rise no higher than 8 percent already have been shattered, leaving Obama’s advisers to caution that job growth takes time, even as recovery spending intensifies.

Federal agencies will release billions of stimulus dollars to states in the coming months.

Health and Human Services will provide funding for 1,129 health centers to provide expanded service for 300,000 patients; Interior will begin improvements on 107 national parks; Veterans Affairs will start work on 90 medical centers in 38 states; the Justice Department will fund 5,000 law enforcement jobs; the Agriculture Department will begin 200 new rural waste and water system projects; and the Environmental Protection Agency will begin or accelerate the cleanup of 20 Superfund sites.

At the same time federal money for these projects is released, the nation’s unemployment rate likely will continue to increase, said Austan Goolsbee, a member of the White House Council of Economic Advisers…

[fun240]

No wonder i can't find a job

-131,600



screw it

[AZhitman]

aaaand, let's not forget: We ORIGINALLY were told that the stimulus would create 3,500,000 jobs by 2011.

To give the Obama administration the benefit of the doubt, let's assume that means the end of 2011. That just happens to be 35 months, so we should average 100,000 new jobs a month starting in February 2009.

Unfortunately we continue to lose jobs every month which means that the number of jobs per month that need to be gained to have a net gain of 3,500,000 by the end of 2011 goes up every month.

For example, since we have lost 3,386,000 since the stimulus promise, we now need to average approximately 255,000 new jobs per month until the end of 2011.

See, you can HOPE in one hand and POOP in the other. Which one filled up faster?

[AZhitman]

At his news conference on Monday, February 9, 2009, he said the plan he supports would create or save "up to 4 million jobs."

In his opening statement at the news conference, at least, he avoided the claim made earlier that the plan would create or save at least 3 million jobs.

As we roll back the clock, are we seeing a pattern here?

I'll sit here and watch while the Left looks around for a GOP-dominated Congress (oops) to blame.

[srellim234]

Please connect the dots for me. We're losing millions of jobs, no new jobs for those people to go to, and COBRA insurance costs more to the individual than they collect on unemployment. Exactly what ARE you willing to do for healthcare for those millions of adults and kids?

Sentient has the attitude that those millions of people who lost their jobs through no fault of their own are moochers.

What do you support that will have an instant impact and provide healthcare?

[AZhitman]

You want me to now do the President's job?

Nope, sorry. That's above my pay grade.

Remember, I didn't make the promises to get elected.

We're losing the jobs because the left is redistributing wealth... Corporate America (the real driver of the economy, not the government) is going to maintain a profit no matter what the Administration does.

If it means outsourcing jobs to avoid losing shareholder dividends in the face of higher corporate income tax, they will (and should).

To answer your next question? I'm not willing to do ANYTHING for them.

Read my other thread. Those people are NOT my responsibility, and they;re not the overnment's responsibility. There's no guaranteed RIGHT to healthcare. What did they do last year? What did they do 5 years ago? The numbers have NOT changed that much (uninsured) when you adjust for employment.

Less people are employed, sure. Remember, the lefty attorneys sued the pants off any bank that wouldn't loan to every bum with a $9/hour job so he could buy a house. Those guys defaullted. Surplus of houses on the market. No construction. Now this is MY problem?

HELL NO.

I paid my bills, I saved money. I passed on easy credit. I lived within my means. I worked 80-90 hours a week to get ahead of the next guy (who sat and watched TV and drank beer).

Screw him if he doesn't have a job now, and screw him if he doesn't have healthcare now.

He's got NO RIGHT to my wallet.

Why does the left think there has to be an "instant impact"?

Econ 101: NOTHING GOOD happens fast.

[C-Kwik]

Just a quick comment as I have to get back to my studies. How many jobs would be lost had there not been a stimulus. Not saying it would be worse, but unless you can make the comparison, its hard to gauge the effects of the stimulus either way. This requires much more analysis than the simple claim you make Greg. I mean, think of it this way. For the companies that received large stimulus packages, if they didn't, how many people would they have laid off? Would any of them gone under? And of course, this is only one aspect. This is most definitely not a one dimensional problem. As such, analysis of it should not be as well...

[telcoman]

Please connect the dots for me. We're losing millions of jobs, no new jobs for those people to go to, and COBRA insurance costs more to the individual than they collect on unemployment. Exactly what ARE you willing to do for healthcare for those millions of adults and kids?

Sentient has the attitude that those millions of people who lost their jobs through no fault of their own are moochers.

What do you support that will have an instant impact and provide healthcare?

Those on the right support nothing!

They had eight years to do something about healthcare after Hillary failed to geta bill approved.

All they did was to allow the large healthcare companies to rape the American people by their own death panels.

Here is another dot to connect for those that may have missed this story that perhaps Fox news ignored?

For d!ck Cheney to accuse our president of dithering over Afghanistan that he himself f***ed up by starting a war in Irag and f***ing up our economy a few wingnuts now want to blame President Obama.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10...ml?hp

Give me a break.

The economy is slowly improving, we will see a healthcare bill while the republican numbers continue to decline.

Telcoman

[AZhitman]

They had eight years to do something about healthcare after Hillary failed to geta bill approved.

Put your helmet on, the sky is falling.

Maybe these healthcare bills keep failing because we don't NEED the government to do ANYTHING! Hmmmmm....

You're fabricating a crisis, just like Algore did with MMGW.

Policy by Panic is stupid, and your lunatic ranting is (again) off-topic.

Just respond to the original point of the thread or don't comment at all.

Even if there IS a healthcare crisis, it's largely the result of lax immigration enforcement and lefty attorneys who hamstrung corporate America.

Reach for my wallet and see what happens. It won't be pretty.

_________

Chano, you're absolutely right. It's NOT that simple. So WHY the rush to sign it? Why the rush to approve it?

If, as you say, I don't fully understand it, then who does?

And why are they not drafting it in a manner that makes sense to Steve, Howie, you, and me?

[telcoman]

[QUOTE=AZhitman]

Just respond to the original point of the thread or don't comment at all. [/QUOTE

Sure! I'd be glad to.

Here you go!

http://features.csmonitor.com/...oesnt/

[QUOTE=AZhitman]

Maybe these healthcare bills keep failing because we don't NEED the government to do ANYTHING! Hmmmmm....[/QUOTE

They are not failing

They haven't even been reconciled into one bill yet.

[QUOTE=AZhitman]

Put your helmet on, the sky is falling.

[/QUOTE

It was falling for the past eight years up until January 19th but it stopped falling after January 20th

[AZhitman]

Even when you THINK you're on-topic, you're not. This thread is about the stimulus bill.

But, since it's so easy to refute your nonsense, and since you let the Christian Science Monitor do your talking for you, here ya go:

"All the national polls show a wide majority of Americans support the public option," Senator Reid said on Monday.

Really, Harry Reid?

You're a LIAR.

In an Oct. 21 Gallup survey, for instance, 50 percent of respondents thought a healthcare bill should include a public, government-run insurance plan. Forty-six percent thought it should not.

You can't even get your Democrats to agree, so don't bother me with your silly "majority" nonsense.

Lieberman's eating your lunch, LOL.

[AZhitman]

They are not failing

Really? But YOU said:

....after Hillary failed to geta bill approved.

And how many years did Teddy work on it?

Failing.

[telcoman]

Even when you THINK you're on-topic, you're not. This thread is about the stimulus bill.

But, since it's so easy to refute your nonsense, and since you let the Christian Science Monitor do your talking for you, here ya go:

"All the national polls show a wide majority of Americans support the public option," Senator Reid said on Monday.

Really, Harry Reid?

You're a LIAR.

In an Oct. 21 Gallup survey, for instance, 50 percent of respondents thought a healthcare bill should include a public, government-run insurance plan. Forty-six percent thought it should not.

You can't even get your Democrats to agree, so don't bother me with your silly "majority" nonsense.

Lieberman's eating your lunch, LOL.

The stimulus bill is working. If it wasn't we would be in a world wide depression.

[srellim234]

So what the conservatives are saying is that in Ameria the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" no longer extends to life, only extends to liberties for corporations and conservative wallets, and the pursuit of happiness is only the pursuit of money?

[AZhitman]

The stimulus bill is working. If it wasn't we would be in a world wide depression.

Why, because Barney Frank says so?

Do you believe everything your microwave oven tells you?

[AZhitman]

So what the conservatives are saying is that in Ameria the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" no longer extends to life, only extends to liberties for corporations and conservative wallets, and the pursuit of happiness is only the pursuit of money?

No.

Remember, I'm not a connservative. I'm a pragmatist.

What the people who have their full complement of critical thinking capacities are saying, however, is this:

You have the right to life. Self-explanatory. Not sure how you are misperceiving that one, you'd better explain. I don't see anyone denying anyone their "right to life" (except those who promote abortion as birth control, but I digress).

You have the right to liberty. Also self-explanatory. Not sure how you're messing that one up either. I don't see anyone putting all the conservative wallets on this side and the liberal wallets on the other side, and denying liberties to one set or the other - Does Hollywood not make money hand over fist? I also don't see liberties being denied to non-corporations. Unless you mean those who would separate the successful from their wealth, just because there are those among us who DON'T have it so good - but that's not a conservative thing (you knew that, though).

You have the right to pursue happiness. Happiness is an elusive word, for many it means peace and security, for others it means owning stuff and having money and for others it means getting high and eating Doritos.

Nowhere in there are you guaranteed anything else.

Where DO you people come off thinking someone ELSE should pay for your health insurance?

What's next? Your car insurance? Your light bill?

The essence of an ideal American, in my mind, is to find YOUR OWN WAY to live one's life to the fullest, to use the God-given talents one has, within the societal limitations set forth by the laws of man and the law of the land, and to find a way to navigate the world and all its sub-structures (social / economical / spiritual) in a way that benefits you and doesn't harm others.

Read that again.

It doesn't leave much room for the President to be my Daddy. I have one, and he taught me to fend for myself.

[AZhitman]

Even when you THINK you're on-topic, you're not. This thread is about the stimulus bill.

But, since it's so easy to refute your nonsense, and since you let the Christian Science Monitor do your talking for you, here ya go:

"All the national polls show a wide majority of Americans support the public option," Senator Reid said on Monday.

Really, Harry Reid?

You're a LIAR.

In an Oct. 21 Gallup survey, for instance, 50 percent of respondents thought a healthcare bill should include a public, government-run insurance plan. Forty-six percent thought it should not.

You can't even get your Democrats to agree, so don't bother me with your silly "majority" nonsense.

Lieberman's eating your lunch, LOL.

To reiterate, just in case everyone missed the fact that once again, Howard dodged and failed to return fire.

I hope you don't shoot blanks in ALL your endeavors.

[WDRacing]

IMO, if big business were allowed to fail, there would be a vacuum that would be filled by businesses that didn't fail allowing the free market to work like it should. If big fails, it allows the smaller to exist.

In case anyone hasn't grasped it, big has been screwing us for years. Be it big insurance, big banking or big Gov...big fails. And when it fails it screws all of us.

Has nothing to do with left or right. If GM went under, Ford would have taken over along with all the Import companies. It's just the way things work...unless the Gov steps in and gives away all of our hard earned money. Keep big bizz in power, lining its pockets and remaining empowered.

Gov is for Gov. There is no for the people by the people.

Now they want to be able to tap the Fed and bailout anyone they deem fit with no Congressional oversight at all. Are you F'in me?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/200...ation

Out of control = The US Gov.

[C-Kwik]

Chano, you're absolutely right. It's NOT that simple. So WHY the rush to sign it? Why the rush to approve it?

If, as you say, I don't fully understand it, then who does?

And why are they not drafting it in a manner that makes sense to Steve, Howie, you, and me?

I don't fully understand it so how would I know? Presumably, the smartest economists would be the best people to ask. Speculatively though, failure to act quickly could become more detrimental. To some extent, this is a lose-lose situation. It would be great if the market just picked itself back up on its own. But its obviously not doing so.

And what do you mean bt drafting it in a manner that makes sense? Are you referring to the wording of the bill or that the bill should be more sensible?

On a side note, its ironic how much criticism BO is getting for wanting to make a good assessment of what to do about Afghanistan...

IMO, if big business were allowed to fail, there would be a vacuum that would be filled by businesses that didn't fail allowing the free market to work like it should. If big fails, it allows the smaller to exist.

In case anyone hasn't grasped it, big has been screwing us for years. Be it big insurance, big banking or big Gov...big fails. And when it fails it screws all of us.

Has nothing to do with left or right. If GM went under, Ford would have taken over along with all the Import companies. It's just the way things work...unless the Gov steps in and gives away all of our hard earned money. Keep big bizz in power, lining its pockets and remaining empowered.

In some theoretical sense, yes. But the problem now is not that they would leave a void. The other car manufacturers can't pick up the slack (in terms of employment) if people simply aren't buying as many cars. The main issue is that people are not spending as much because they are fearful about their financial security. And of course, people who are out of work now are not spending as much either. This causes businesses to have to reel back which cuts more jobs. Its a spiraling effect.

[C-Kwik]

I think the real reason for the stimulus bill was to inflate our currency...

there is a man behind a desk somewhere making plans for a new multinational currency that will replace the dollar.

real talk.

there's a secret government...

economic and military policies develop outside the hands of our elected officials.

/goodbye

Quit it with the conspiracy theories. Otherwise you'll be enjoying a week off. If you're gonna post something, please put some real thought into it.

[WDRacing]

On a side note, its ironic how much criticism BO is getting for wanting to make a good assessment of what to do about Afghanistan...

He knew about the situation before he took office. He gets daily briefs...daily, as in from Day 1. This didn't just "SPRING THE F UP" homie. He's had months.

Understand, I know the country is AFU. I know and consider all the things he's done and is doing. I know this is a button issue on all kinds of different levels. But I have literally, 57 friends deployed right now. The longer they go without a clear and concise direction and the means to get there, they are undermanned, under funded and are getting killed on a daily F'IN BASIS. Now I'm sorry if I'm a tad bit friggin emotional, but WTF. Does this damn country need a few schools to explode to get back in the game? Wanna know why we aren't seeing more s*** blown up? Because the terrorists know we're waffling. They're betting we don't have the initiative anymore and aren't going to provoke us.

Either get all the way out of there or "make a F'in hole"...but FFS do something and do it now.

I've said it before, I'll stand by whatever decision he makes because it takes balls to do "something". But we need a direction and it's either go all in, or gtfo. More of the same isn't going to cut it. He should be familiar with that statement, he used it to get elected.

In some theoretical sense, yes. But the problem now is not that they would leave a void. The other car manufacturers can't pick up the slack (in terms of employment) if people simply aren't buying as many cars. The main issue is that people are not spending as much because they are fearful about their financial security. And of course, people who are out of work now are not spending as much either. This causes businesses to have to reel back which cuts more jobs. Its a spiraling effect.

I see exactly what you described happening right now. Now hear me out for a sec. What if we took the money they gave AIG, GM and say 2 other major bailout corps and gave it to every person that made under 200k last year but paid taxes for the last 2 years. That's an influx of cash, right in the meat of the general populace. The people that we need to spend money, to generate all the business that the corps of America need to keep and create more jobs. Solving 2 problems at once. The entire USA thinks you're the coolest person alive and have record setting morale for the first time in a friggin decade. Followed by saving the country from a horrible recession. If he did that, he would have every bill/law/whim succeed for the next 8 years.

But what do we REALLY have...just different administration doing the same thing.

[telcoman]

To reiterate, just in case everyone missed the fact that once again, Howard dodged and failed to return fire.

I hope you don't shoot blanks in ALL your endeavors.

I think it is your news sources that are faulty.

Mine are right on.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10...=1&hp

The failure that you Limbaugh and a few others were wishing for just ain't gonna happen.

We finally got a real president in the whitehouse with a very capable cabinet and advisors.

[AZhitman]

Speculatively though, failure to act quickly could become more detrimental.

Words like "speculatively" and "could" are NOT the words used when drafting public policy.

Especially when it involves this kind of money.

The bottom line is this: YOU don't know. I don't know. And neither does the Administration.

Yet the American public is being pressured and cajoled to approve things that are a SHOT IN THE DARK.

[AZhitman]

I think it is your news sources that are faulty.

Do you practice saying stupid stuff in front of a mirror or do you just get lucky a lot?

Did you know that this quote was reported by your beloved NYT?

"All the national polls show a wide majority of Americans support the public option," Senator Reid said on Monday.

That is a FACT. Reid SAID THE WORDS. Argue with me, please.

In an Oct. 21 Gallup survey, for instance, 50 percent of respondents thought a healthcare bill should include a public, government-run insurance plan. Forty-six percent thought it should not.

Also a FACT. Argue with me on that as well.

Quit dodging the FACTS. We all know you have a crush on Barack. That doesn't change the FACTS.

[C-Kwik]

Words like "speculatively" and "could" are NOT the words used when drafting public policy.

Especially when it involves this kind of money.

The bottom line is this: YOU don't know. I don't know. And neither does the Administration.

Yet the American public is being pressured and cajoled to approve things that are a SHOT IN THE DARK.

I never said the administration is speculating. It was only my own speculation. Nothing more. Of course, to some extent, even expert opinions about how to proceed are speculative in nature, but likely much less so than those of us who don't have a firm understanding of the economy. Going back to my original point though, do you have any idea what kind of shape the economy would be in without the stimulus? I sure don't. And I doubt you do either.

He knew about the situation before he took office. He gets daily briefs...daily, as in from Day 1. This didn't just "SPRING THE F UP" homie. He's had months.

The economy was also in shambles well before the election and his inauguration. So we can't automatically assume he made a brash decision about the stimulus either. I was merely pointing out contradictions of views on how the administration is handling these 2 issues. Its kind of a damned if he does, damned if he doesn't situation.

I see exactly what you described happening right now. Now hear me out for a sec. What if we took the money they gave AIG, GM and say 2 other major bailout corps and gave it to every person that made under 200k last year but paid taxes for the last 2 years. That's an influx of cash, right in the meat of the general populace. The people that we need to spend money, to generate all the business that the corps of America need to keep and create more jobs. Solving 2 problems at once. The entire USA thinks you're the coolest person alive and have record setting morale for the first time in a friggin decade. Followed by saving the country from a horrible recession. If he did that, he would have every bill/law/whim succeed for the next 8 years.

LOL. I love simple ideas. But the whole thing is contingent on the recipients of such a stimulus actually spending it in such a way that it is fruitful to the economy. My initial thought is that if people are reluctant to spend, then they may hold onto it for a rainy day. Some may pay off some bills which could reduce some of the risk level for financial institutions, but ultimately, I don't think it would restore confidence unless it can help to ensure there is a stable job market. People who have stable jobs tend to buy and borrow more.

[smockers83]

Just a quick comment as I have to get back to my studies. How many jobs would be lost had there not been a stimulus. Not saying it would be worse, but unless you can make the comparison, its hard to gauge the effects of the stimulus either way. This requires much more analysis than the simple claim you make Greg. I mean, think of it this way. For the companies that received large stimulus packages, if they didn't, how many people would they have laid off? Would any of them gone under? And of course, this is only one aspect. This is most definitely not a one dimensional problem. As such, analysis of it should not be as well...

Analysis of just when and how the money was rolled out shows that there really wasn't a whole lot of stimulus in the bill to begin with. Most of the money was spent on government programs, keeping them afloat. Only about 19% (I believe that's the correct percentage, in either case, it's very low) of the money was spent as true stimuli moneys.

On top of that, the economy actually began to recover before much of the stimulus money was even paid out.

All they did was to allow the large healthcare companies to rape the American people by their own death panels.

...

For d!ck Cheney to accuse our president of dithering over Afghanistan that he himself f***ed up by starting a war in Irag and f***ing up our economy a few wingnuts now want to blame President Obama.

The stimulus bill is working. If it wasn't we would be in a world wide depression.

To telco, if you're going start swearing here, I'm going to start as well by saying get your f'in head out of your f'in a**. Seriously.

[audtatious]

To telco, if you're going start swearing here, I'm going to start as well by saying get your f'in head out of your f'in a**. Seriously.

So, THAT'S why his posts seem to have an echo

[C-Kwik]

Analysis of just when and how the money was rolled out shows that there really wasn't a whole lot of stimulus in the bill to begin with. Most of the money was spent on government programs, keeping them afloat. Only about 19% (I believe that's the correct percentage, in either case, it's very low) of the money was spent as true stimuli moneys.

Depending on the specific government programs in question, one might argue that the government programs employ people too (keeping them afloat might save jobs?). And some programs that rely on the private sector could see a pretty direct trickle down effect. Not saying this is what is or did happen. Just some initial thoughts on this that came up as I read your post...

On top of that, the economy actually began to recover before much of the stimulus money was even paid out.

At what point and to what extent. And potentially, since much of the recession seems to be based on a lack of confidence in the market, wouldn't the prospect of a stimulus help reduce the lack of confidence? That is, as companies on the verge of going under are told they are going to be saved, there would likely be some level of security restored in the job market (perhaps temporarily). Perception has a strong influence on the way people behave. Perhaps the act of coming up with a stimulus package itself helped the economy. And again, this is only speculation on my part as I don't have the time to try and seek out data to make any attempt at any kind of an analysis. My point is that we can't simply look at a single cause/effect relationship and expect that the analysis is complete.

[audtatious]

Any recovery we have had is directly attributed to the first stimulus