My God, you are an idiot.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Question: how are people determining the per-job cost of the stimulus bill? Perhaps someone can send me to a cite or site where that calculation is made.

Sorry, I'm not your google-bitch.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

Sorry, I'm not your google-bitch.

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?

[Sidd Finch]

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?

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.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

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.

Sometimes, as attorneys age, they start to lose their edge, cutting corners, citing facts they pull out of their ass, trying to cover for it with half-baked bravado or half-thought out excuses (mad cow!).

It's good to see Hank is getting some company over at Penske's Medicaid Palace.

[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.

[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?

[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 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.

[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.

[Gattigap]

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.

Before we reach full dudgeon, look at your link. Through Q1 2011, total outlays and tax cuts were $666B.

Of that, $293B were tax cuts, which were not so much the Jackbooted Boot of Government Waste, but God's Mother's Milk of Entrepreneurial activity, so those don't count.

Therefore, we have completely pissed away not $850B, but something more like $370B. Right?

[Cletus Miller]

Originally Posted by Gattigap

Through Q1 2011, total outlays and tax cuts were $666B.

No wonder everything's gone to hell.

As to the rest, that was a lot more work than I was willing to put into "yes, there is a better way to calculate the cost per job".