My God, you are an idiot.

[sgtclub]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Look, you're the one concluding the cost per job was extraordinarily high, a conclusion neither you nor Michele Bachmann nor Clubby seem to be giving me a source for - I understand why Michele and Clubby don't want to think about the question.

And what is this google-bitch bitch - are you getting lazy on a Friday?

They are from the CBO, which I referenced yesterday. Read much?

[sgtclub]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

Blow me. I didn't cite a specific number. My view that it was inefficient is mostly based on the inherent inefficiency of tax cuts as a job-creating tool.

Don't go wobbly on me know. You and I are the bi-partisan coalition around here.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

They are from the CBO, which I referenced yesterday. Read much?

You may want to read your CBO report again. This is the Fox interpretation, already rebutted repeatedly.

It's acheived by looking at CBO (or CEA) numbers on total job impact of the bill by the total cost of bill, disregarding any secondary impact. Thus, something not designed to impact jobs, like additional unemployment benefits, is counted in the cost. Same with low impact programs, like the tax cuts that the Rs insisted on.

We expect better from you.

[sgtclub]

Originally Posted by Cletus Miller

As Hank would say, am I on ignore? $1T cost, 4,000,000 jobs. $250,000 per job.

I also believe that Holtz-Eakin or some other ass endorsed the simplistic calculation sometime in January or February of 2009.

It is more like $850B and 3.5 million saved or created.
Do you have a better way to calculate?

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

3.5 million saved or created.

How do they know? This strikes me as a figure most likely to have been pulled out of someone's ass.

[sgtclub]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

You may want to read your CBO report again. This is the Fox interpretation, already rebutted repeatedly.

It's acheived by looking at CBO (or CEA) numbers on total job impact of the bill by the total cost of bill, disregarding any secondary impact. Thus, something not designed to impact jobs, like additional unemployment benefits, is counted in the cost. Same with low impact programs, like the tax cuts that the Rs insisted on.

We expect better from you.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/defa...rra_report.pdf

[sgtclub]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

You may want to read your CBO report again. This is the Fox interpretation, already rebutted repeatedly.

It's acheived by looking at CBO (or CEA) numbers on total job impact of the bill by the total cost of bill, disregarding any secondary impact. Thus, something not designed to impact jobs, like additional unemployment benefits, is counted in the cost. Same with low impact programs, like the tax cuts that the Rs insisted on.

We expect better from you.

We spent an additional $850B than we would have without the bill. We "saved or created" $3.5 million jobs. You can get your panties in a bunch all you'd like, the facts don't change.

[sgtclub]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

How do they know? This strikes me as a figure most likely to have been pulled out of someone's ass.

You are preaching to the choir. No one in the political arena talked about jobs "saved" until 2008. Certainly not in the early Bush era, when the Ds went nuts when unemployment was below 5%.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. I hate both parties. But if someone doesn't stem the one-sided nonsense being spouted around, we might as well all take up permanent residence in an echo chamber.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

We spent an additional $850B than we would have without the bill. We "saved or created" $3.5 million jobs. You can get your panties in a bunch all you'd like, the facts don't change.

Don't like to deal with real facts, huh? You helping Boehner and his tea partiers out with their economics these days?

[sgtclub]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Don't like to deal with real facts, huh? You helping Boehner and his tea partiers out with their economics these days?

Them are the facts. We spent $850B under the rationale that if we did, unemployment would not exceed 8%. It was sold as a jobs bill. It did not deliver. Crunch the numbers however you like.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

How do they know? This strikes me as a figure most likely to have been pulled out of someone's ass.

Pretty much.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by lessinsf

how do they know? This strikes me as a figure most likely to have been pulled out of someone's ass.

2, but I'm still more interested in knowing whether club or anyone else disagrees with Summers on what the problem is, before we all solve it.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

Them are the facts. We spent $850B under the rationale that if we did, unemployment would not exceed 8%. It was sold as a jobs bill. It did not deliver. Crunch the numbers however you like.

Just to focus on one small point, because I realize the limits of your logical capabilities, I don't think anyone said that extending unemployment benefits would create jobs, did they? How would extending benefits for people not working create jobs?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

2, but I'm still more interested in knowing whether club or anyone else disagrees with Summers on what the problem is, before we all solve it.

You're going to distract him. He's too busy not answering my question to not answer yours.

Summers is one bright asshole.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

Them are the facts. We spent $850B under the rationale that if we did, unemployment would not exceed 8%.

Yes, because macroeconomic forecasting is iron-clad and every forecast is a promise upon which you can bank.

Why did you feel the need to obtuse in this particular way?

It was sold as a jobs bill. It did not deliver. Crunch the numbers however you like.

Things were worse than they thought at the time, and the states reacted more strongly than they expected, thus it didn't work. Brilliant.

Although, honestly, it wasn't that things were worse than they thought, it's that they got the best deal they thought they could get out of Congress (thanks, Sen. Nelson!), rolled it up with a whole bunch of hope and optimism, and pretended like the deal they got was just right!

I read something just today, which I cannot find at the moment, about how all of Obama's economic advisers (I take that to mean Summers and Romer, btw) told him the stimulus was too small but they went with what they could get.