[G13]

Originally Posted by Klath [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You were spreading misinformation.

You can't quantify "saved jobs" in an economy. Your premise doesn't begin to address Opportunity Costs and Negative Externalities such as private investment, that is adversely affected when the Government taxes private investors to employ people in public jobs (even temporarily). Those are resources that are shifting in an economy. It isn't new wealth being created. You can only calculate created jobs. In order to understand economics, which you clearly don't, you'd understand that Government doesn't create wealth. All Government does it taxes private income and calls it "revenue".

In order for Obama to have even been able to spend a trillion dollars he has to take it from someone else. The Government can print money, but if it prints too much that causes inflation. The wealth you have sitting in the bank devalues as a result, therefore it shrinks. People who use class warfare rhetoric always base their arguments on the premise that there is a set sized pie. That wealth is somehow this finite resource. That's a fallacy. Wealth can expand and contract depending on the markets. Just ask the people who's 401K plans lost a third of their value overnight after financial crash of 2008.

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

We have a president who has ran a record trillion+ deficit 3 years in a row. If the Stimulus was such a success, why is our Government running and accumulating such debt and deficits? The Stimulus cost more than the entire 8 year Iraq War. Claiming the Stimulus was a "success" is spreading misinformation, unless you believe that success with your tax dollars that have been confiscated from you were efficiently spent in the following examples:

Obama's stimulus "created" 3,545 Green Jobs. Total amount of Stimulus/tax dollars invested = 17.2 billion. When calculated, that equals 4, 853, 000 per saved or created job.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...3SK_story.html

Look at all the taxpayer money that was wasted just in this "Green Jobs" program alone. See those billions next to Solyndra? That's an example of Obama paying off his crony rich elite bundlers like George Kaiser with your tax money. These people donated and bundled millions for Obama's campaign, and in return they get Government grants in the billions where we now have solar panel factories with brand new equipment sitting empty and collecting dust. Meanwhile Kaiser and friends pocketed a nice profit off of their campaign investment. The Stimulus dollars hard at work:

https://lpo.energy.gov/?page_id=45

In comparison Obama only helped small businesses, the engine of the US Economy, with 645 million. You're not addressing what kinds of jobs the Stimulus "created". They are Government jobs. Census workers. The DMV. Teachers. There isn't any productivity in the public sector anywhere near that which occurs in the private sector.

http://www.recovery.gov/Transparency...agency_code=73

Zero jobs created in August 2011

http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-mone...t-jobs-figures

6.4 billion in stimulus funds just disappeared:

http://watchdog.org/1530/6-4-billion...tom-districts/

Absolutely. Lets play. I pasted a quote from Wikipedia that had references to the original sources. You posted an unsourced quote that turned out to be from a fake news blog. See a difference?

Taken directly from Wikipedia:

Anyone can be bold and edit an existing article or create a new one, and volunteers do not need to have any formal training. The people who create and edit articles in Wikipedia come from countries all around the world and have a wide range of ages and backgrounds. Any contributor to this encyclopedia, unregistered and registered alike, is called a "Wikipedian," or "editor" more formally known.

I even clicked your Wikipedia link again and it directs you to a specific area on the page which is headlined with the following:

Recommendations by economists

On the very area you have used as your only source, it stated the following:

On January 28, 2009, a full-page advertisement with the names of approximately 200 economists who were against Obama's plan appeared in The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal. The economists denied the quoted statement by President Obama that there was "no disagreement that we need action by our government, a recovery plan that will help to jumpstart the economy." Instead, the signers believed that "to improve the economy, policymakers should focus on reforms that remove impediments to work, saving, investment and production. Lower tax rates and a reduction in the burden of government are the best ways of using fiscal policy to boost growth."

Here's the ad:

http://www.cato.org/special/stimulus...o_stimulus.pdf

The argument is over whether the stimulus helped or hurt the economy. If I have to choose between the opinion of IHS Global Insight, Moody's.com, Economy.com, and Macroeconomic Advisers and a guy in the Project1999 forums who can't fact-check his sources then I'm affraid you're seriously outgunned.

http://blogs.reuters.com/james-petho...made-it-worse/

Respected Stanford economist John Taylor, perhaps the next chairman of the Federal Reserve, has analyzed the actual results of the ARRA. Not what the White House’s garbage-in, garbage-out models say happened, but what actually happened as gleaned from government statistics. Taylor, simply put, looked at whether consumers actually consumed and whether government actually spent in a way that produced real growth and jobs....

Taylor's piece: http://johnbtaylorsblog.blogspot.com...-not-have.html

Individuals and families largely saved the transfers and tax rebates. The federal government increased purchases, but by only an immaterial amount. State and local governments used the stimulus grants to reduce their net borrowing (largely by acquiring more financial assets) rather than to increase expenditures, and they shifted expenditures away from purchases toward transfers. Some argue that the economy would have been worse off without these stimulus packages, but the results do not support that view.

I'll refer to my points in my previous post you have still failed to properly address for my evidence to confirm what the above source is stating. Lower median income. An expanding poverty rate. A shrinking job market. More food stamp usage than ever before. If the Stimulus was a success, you would see these areas trending up. Not down. We're talking about a trillion dollars of wealth here. Not monopoly money.

African American Unemployment is the highest it's been in almost 30 years.

http://money.cnn.com/2011/09/02/news...rate/index.htm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/busine...IxI_story.html

One thing the Stimulus did do was expose hacks and frauds like Stiglitz and Krugman. Economics is now thankfully trending away from failed Keynesian policies and towards the Austrian school as it should be.

http://news.investors.com/Article/58...Nobel-Aces.htm

Failed Policy: The Nobel Prize for Economics goes to two Americans who have separately exposed the flaws in government stimulus spending. For a Keynesian president, it's the Anti-Peace Prize.