7 Months after Stimulus 49 of 50 states have lost jobs

**FORD** · 10-21-2009, 05:24 PM

If the stimulus "failed", it's because the Repukes gutted it before it passed.

Reality is that most of this economic damage was already done last year, and some of the employers (greedy Repuke bastards that they are) held off on dropping the ax until after January 20 so they could blame it on a Democratic administration. All the jobs that got cut in late January and February? How transparent can you get?

**Guitar Shark** · 10-21-2009, 05:24 PM

Originally posted by Big Train

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.

I'm pretty confident the claim was that the stimulus package would either create new jobs or retain existing jobs that would otherwise have been lost. So the above statement seems highly misleading to me.

**Guitar Shark** · 10-21-2009, 05:25 PM

Originally posted by FORD

If the stimulus "failed", it's because the Repukes gutted it before it passed.

Lame argument made even lamer by continued use of the "Repuke" term.

**Mushroom** · 10-21-2009, 05:34 PM

Originally posted by Big Train

the White House's February 2009 projection... (through the end of 2010)

We still have time.

the "Stimulus Package" wasn't only for saving jobs, but also investing in the future (education, infrastructure)

**Big Train** · 10-21-2009, 06:34 PM

Originally posted by Guitar Shark

I'm pretty confident the claim was that the stimulus package would either create new jobs or retain existing jobs that would otherwise have been lost. So the above statement seems highly misleading to me.

So maybe it should read "lost and/or failed to retain existing jobs".

**Nitro Express** · 10-21-2009, 06:58 PM

Here was our two choices:

Choice A) Let the banks and corporations fail. This would have taken the commercial real estate sector with it. The result would be huge job losses overnight, empty shells of commercial real estate all over. General Motors would be out of business. This would result in lot of angry people and probably lot's of civil unrest and riots. Then the survivors would come in and rebuild the economy (in theory).

Choice B) The taxpayer bails out the losers. The stimulus package. We avoid overnight mass job loses and lose jobs at a slower pace. Taxes go up substantially. The govt. runs failing businesses. This lessens the pain but prolongs it. Hopefully you die early so the tax burdon is on your kids and grandkids.

It was all a decision on what type of fucking we get. Hard, quick, and violent or slow and prolonged.

**Big Train** · 10-21-2009, 07:05 PM

Disagree. Looking at the numbers, we got both with or without the bailout.

Since the banks basically hoarded it anyway, we just gave away a shitload of money, got the job losses and are now getting the higher taxes.

The banks that were well positioned (i.e. Wells Fargo) swallowed up assests (Wachovia) dirt cheap and offered to return the money because the restrictions were too onerous. The poorly positioned ones (i.e Bof A) took the beating they were supposed to.

GM SHOULD have gone out of business. The TARP money would have been much better spent investing in new domestic automakers (i.e. Tesla) rather than trying to keep an old one with a toxic balance sheet going. Essentially they tried to do that with banks and automakers (clean the balance sheets Something that would advance his agenda (i.e. climate) and have created jobs.

NONE of it created jobs.

**Nitro Express** · 10-21-2009, 07:11 PM

All it did was slow the job loses and keep the economy going a bit. The banks were the big winners. How would you like it if you could speculate wildly and if you win, you keep the money and if you lose the taxpayer pays for your loses? The banks can intimidate people because they own everybody and everything. Big bullies they are.

**Nickdfresh** · 10-21-2009, 10:04 PM

Originally posted by Big Train

Disagree. Looking at the numbers, we got both with or without the bailout.

Since the banks basically hoarded it anyway, we just gave away a shitload of money, got the job losses and are now getting the higher taxes.

The banks that were well positioned (i.e. Wells Fargo) swallowed up assests (Wachovia) dirt cheap and offered to return the money because the restrictions were too onerous. The poorly positioned ones (i.e Bof A) took the beating they were supposed to.

GM SHOULD have gone out of business. The TARP money would have been much better spent investing in new domestic automakers (i.e. Tesla) rather than trying to keep an old one with a toxic balance sheet going. Essentially they tried to do that with banks and automakers (clean the balance sheets Something that would advance his agenda (i.e. climate) and have created jobs.

NONE of it created jobs.

The Stimulus has retrenched jobs from one sector to another. For instance, construction workers that would have been laid off early working for home contractors are now working on projects being funded. Secondly, relatively little of the TARP has been spent as of yet and the economy is in the beginnings of a recovery.

And would the gutting of GM to fund a niche electric sports car company have only destroyed more jobs? Especially when GM is set to release a small car (The Chevy Cruz) that is far more refined than the dated, last generation Astra Cobalt/Pontiac G5 econobox they'd been schilling. BTW, the Cruz also may reportedly get 44 miles per gallon with a conventional gasoline (turbocharged) engine. Better than most hybrids!

**Big Train** · 10-22-2009, 01:48 PM

The "retrenched" jobs part is debatable given the overall job losses (See the other thread for the numbers). The projects being funded for the most part aren't even underway yet and have been dribbling out, as you said, so it's not as is the mass of workers in any industry has seen a benefit thus far.

A niche car company with technology being licensed to several major automakers (Daimler who recently bought a 10% stake) a new "common man" EV, a clean balance sheet (with investment, which would be attractive with government matching dollars, to hire workers and buy idle plants) and a willing worker base ready to rock, I don't understand what holding up GM did but cost a lot of money for very little bang in return.

**sadaist** · 10-22-2009, 02:33 PM

Originally posted by FORD

If the stimulus "failed", it's because the Repukes gutted it before it passed.

It was nearly a Trillion dollars. How is that "gutted"?

**sadaist** · 10-22-2009, 02:37 PM

Originally posted by Guitar Shark

I'm pretty confident the claim was that the stimulus package would either create new jobs or retain existing jobs that would otherwise have been lost. So the above statement seems highly misleading to me.

The whole problem with the entire "retain existing jobs" argument is there is absolutely no way to account for that. It's like measuring with units of smiles/joy/hope. Sounds great, but no way to prove success...and no way to disprove it.

**Nickdfresh** · 10-22-2009, 03:58 PM

Originally posted by sadaist

The whole problem with the entire "retain existing jobs" argument is there is absolutely no way to account for that. It's like measuring with units of smiles/joy/hope. Sounds great, but no way to prove success...and no way to disprove it.

There's no way to get hard numbers as to how many jobs were saved where. But just about every mainstream economist believes that the Stimulus efforts prevented an even worse recession and shortened things...

**Big Train** · 10-22-2009, 04:16 PM

Which must mean that there was no way to accurately project those job saving numbers in the first place...which makes it bullshit, no?

7 Months after Stimulus 49 of 50 states have lost jobs

7 Months after Stimulus 49 of 50 states have lost jobs

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment