Things The Republican Congress Has Done, INSTEAD Of Creating Jobs

  • metta

    Posts: 39118

    May 16, 2011 8:07 PM GMT


    Things The Republican Congress Has Done, INSTEAD Of Creating Jobs

    http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/03/08/things-the-republican-congress-has-done-instead-of-creating-jobs/
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 16, 2011 8:42 PM GMT
    Add to that list--making the economy more uncertain for a double dip recession by holding the debt ceiling hostage.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 16, 2011 8:58 PM GMT
    q1w2e3 saidAdd to that list--making the economy more uncertain for a double dip recession by holding the debt ceiling hostage.


    How about making cuts proportional to the level that the debt ceiling would be raised?

  • metta

    Posts: 39118

    May 16, 2011 9:06 PM GMT
    Cuts need to be made in a responsible & timely matter. Just making immediate cuts at irresponsible levels is unnecessary. It took time to build the overspending....it will take time to cut them in a responsible manner. Specific required goals should be made to cut them to levels that will not harm the macro economy (I do not mean specific projects) or threaten peoples lives while ultimately eliminating the overspending and working on reducing the debt by a specific date.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 16, 2011 9:09 PM GMT
    metta8 saidCuts need to be made in a responsible & timely matter. Just making immediate cuts at irresponsible levels is unnecessary. It took time to build the overspending....it will take time to cut them in a responsible manner. Specific required goals should be made to cut them to levels that will not harm the economy or threaten peoples lives while ultimately eliminating the overspending by a specific date.


    That's both silly and ridiculous. They knew this debt ceiling was coming. It's not like they all of a sudden spent a few trillion dollars accidentally and had nothing to show for it. There are plenty of proposals on the table that have been discussed for quite some time to cut - it will not take time for them to cut in a "responsible manner".
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 16, 2011 9:12 PM GMT
    Um, like not throwing lifelines to the F-35 engine project, or add $100 million to a missile project:

    http://thehill.com/news-by-subject/defense-homeland-security/160729-after-heated-partisan-debate-house-panel-adds-100-million-to-missile-program
    Sanchez said the Missile Defense Agency Director, Army Lt. Gen. Patrick O'Reilly, told her on Tuesday that even if his agency got the additional funds for the program, the project is not at a point to spend the funds on its planned 2012 work.

    Committee Ranking Member Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.) said: "It is not very intelligent" to give MDA monies for a program that is not far enough along in its development to spend them.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 16, 2011 9:23 PM GMT
    q1w2e3 saidUm, like not throwing lifelines to the F-35 engine project, or add $100 million to a missile project:

    http://thehill.com/news-by-subject/defense-homeland-security/160729-after-heated-partisan-debate-house-panel-adds-100-million-to-missile-program
    Sanchez said the Missile Defense Agency Director, Army Lt. Gen. Patrick O'Reilly, told her on Tuesday that even if his agency got the additional funds for the program, the project is not at a point to spend the funds on its planned 2012 work.

    Committee Ranking Member Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.) said: "It is not very intelligent" to give MDA monies for a program that is not far enough along in its development to spend them.


    Absolutely. Politicians particularly those who lean left have a bias towards spending simply because of a faith in government. This debt ceiling should not be a surprise. If it is, they should resign because they don't know how to add and subtract or read a budget. To suggest now that they don't have enough time to make spending adjustments as they continue to spend is the height of chutzpah.
  • rnch

    Posts: 11524

    May 16, 2011 9:27 PM GMT
    WHERE'S ALL THE PROMISED JOBS, GOP??
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 16, 2011 9:31 PM GMT
    rnch saidWHERE'S ALL THE PROMISED JOBS, GOP??


    Did you miss the part where the Senate is still under Democratic control or that the Presidency is also under Democratic control? You should be asking that of the current Administration - and that's precisely where the average American is placing the blame. Whatever happened to stimulus? Oh wait...

    Ohio State University Study: "Our benchmark results suggest that the [Stimulus Bill] created/saved approximately 450 thousand state and local government jobs and destroyed/forestalled roughly one million private sector jobs. State and local government jobs were saved because [Stimulus Bill] funds were largely used to offset state revenue shortfalls and Medicaid increases rather than boost private sector employment. The majority of destroyed/forestalled jobs were in growth industries including health, education, professional and business services."
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 16, 2011 9:56 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    rnch saidWHERE'S ALL THE PROMISED JOBS, GOP??


    Did you miss the part where the Senate is still under Democratic control or that the Presidency is also under Democratic control? You should be asking that of the current Administration - and that's precisely where the average American is placing the blame. Whatever happened to stimulus? Oh wait...

    Ohio State University Study: "Our benchmark results suggest that the [Stimulus Bill] created/saved approximately 450 thousand state and local government jobs and destroyed/forestalled roughly one million private sector jobs. State and local government jobs were saved because [Stimulus Bill] funds were largely used to offset state revenue shortfalls and Medicaid increases rather than boost private sector employment. The majority of destroyed/forestalled jobs were in growth industries including health, education, professional and business services."



    That Ohio study is ludicrous. I read through it a couple of times and their thesis is ridiculous and the data is the very definition of "lies, damned lies and statistics."
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 16, 2011 10:06 PM GMT
    Christian73 saidThat Ohio study is ludicrous. I read through it a couple of times and their thesis is ridiculous and the data is the very definition of "lies, damned lies and statistics."

    Here is the link to the study.
    http://web.econ.ohio-state.edu/dupor/arra10_may11.pdf
    With the study at hand for us all to see, would you care to point out the shortfalls and delusions that victimized the economics professors. I'm sure they could benefit from your expertise. Tell us how they misused statistics. If you will share your insight, I will take on the task of forwarding your comments to the professors, and will post their response to you here in RealJock. I'm sure both the professors and the RJ members will benefit from your economic brilliance. So please hurry. I'm sure we are all waiting with baited breath.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 16, 2011 10:18 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    Christian73 saidThat Ohio study is ludicrous. I read through it a couple of times and their thesis is ridiculous and the data is the very definition of "lies, damned lies and statistics."

    Here is the link to the study.
    http://web.econ.ohio-state.edu/dupor/arra10_may11.pdf
    With the study at hand for us all to see, would you care to point out the shortfalls and delusions that victimized the economics professors. I'm sure they could benefit from your expertise. Tell us how they misused statistics. If you will share your insight, I will take on the task of forwarding your comments to the professors, and will post their response to you here in RealJock. I'm sure both the professors and the RJ members will benefit from your economic brilliance. So please hurry. I'm sure we are all waiting with baited breath.


    It's very simple. The paper at no point proves causation between ARRA and the net loss of private sector jobs. Instead, it engages in the statistical equivalent of a synthetic CDO to "prove" it's theory, including a stunning number of "assumptions" and "models" that are twisted to fit their conclusion.

    One can also note that is appeared in no peer reviewed journal and has simply been seized on by the Right (including yourself) because it bucks the majority (conservative and liberal) view that the stimulus was net positive on jobs. icon_rolleyes.gif

    PS: You are welcome, of course, to point to the section of the paper that demonstrates ARRA as the cause of lost private sector jobs.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 16, 2011 10:21 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    socalfitness said
    Christian73 saidThat Ohio study is ludicrous. I read through it a couple of times and their thesis is ridiculous and the data is the very definition of "lies, damned lies and statistics."

    Here is the link to the study.
    http://web.econ.ohio-state.edu/dupor/arra10_may11.pdf
    With the study at hand for us all to see, would you care to point out the shortfalls and delusions that victimized the economics professors. I'm sure they could benefit from your expertise. Tell us how they misused statistics. If you will share your insight, I will take on the task of forwarding your comments to the professors, and will post their response to you here in RealJock. I'm sure both the professors and the RJ members will benefit from your economic brilliance. So please hurry. I'm sure we are all waiting with baited breath.


    It's very simple. The paper at no point proves causation between ARRA and the net loss of private sector jobs. Instead, it engages in the statistical equivalent of a synthetic CDO to "prove" it's theory, including a stunning number of "assumptions" and "models" that are twisted to fit their conclusion.

    One can also note that is appeared in no peer reviewed journal and has simply been seized on by the Right (including yourself) because it bucks the majority (conservative and liberal) view that the stimulus was net positive on jobs. icon_rolleyes.gif

    Very good. I will forward your comments to the professors, and await their response. Will keep you all posted.

    ------------------------

    Gentlemen:

    I very much enjoyed your paper, "The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act: Public Sector Jobs Saved, Private Sector Jobs Forestalled". I participate in a political discussion forum that discusses these topics. Your paper was discussed, and another member who is very far left politically made the following dismissive comment:

    "That Ohio study is ludicrous. I read through it a couple of times and their thesis is ridiculous and the data is the very definition of "lies, damned lies and statistics."

    I challenged him to be specific, and that I would forward his comments to you. He replied:

    "It's very simple. The paper at no point proves causation between ARRA and the net loss of private sector jobs. Instead, it engages in the statistical equivalent of a synthetic CDO to "prove" it's theory, including a stunning number of "assumptions" and "models" that are twisted to fit their conclusion.

    "One can also note that is appeared in no peer reviewed journal and has simply been seized on by the Right (including yourself) [referring to me] because it bucks the majority (conservative and liberal) view that the stimulus was net positive on jobs.

    "PS: You are welcome, of course, to point to the section of the paper that demonstrates ARRA as the cause of lost private sector jobs."

    If you would care to respond I would appreciate your input.

    Thanks, and again, excellent paper.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 16, 2011 10:51 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    Christian73 said
    socalfitness said
    Christian73 saidThat Ohio study is ludicrous. I read through it a couple of times and their thesis is ridiculous and the data is the very definition of "lies, damned lies and statistics."

    Here is the link to the study.
    http://web.econ.ohio-state.edu/dupor/arra10_may11.pdf
    With the study at hand for us all to see, would you care to point out the shortfalls and delusions that victimized the economics professors. I'm sure they could benefit from your expertise. Tell us how they misused statistics. If you will share your insight, I will take on the task of forwarding your comments to the professors, and will post their response to you here in RealJock. I'm sure both the professors and the RJ members will benefit from your economic brilliance. So please hurry. I'm sure we are all waiting with baited breath.


    It's very simple. The paper at no point proves causation between ARRA and the net loss of private sector jobs. Instead, it engages in the statistical equivalent of a synthetic CDO to "prove" it's theory, including a stunning number of "assumptions" and "models" that are twisted to fit their conclusion.

    One can also note that is appeared in no peer reviewed journal and has simply been seized on by the Right (including yourself) because it bucks the majority (conservative and liberal) view that the stimulus was net positive on jobs. icon_rolleyes.gif

    Very good. I will forward your comments to the professors, and await their response. Will keep you all posted.

    ------------------------

    Gentlemen:

    I very much enjoyed your paper, "The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act: Public Sector Jobs Saved, Private Sector Jobs Forestalled". I participate in a political discussion forum that discusses these topics. Your paper was discussed, and another member who is very far left politically made the following dismissive comment:

    "That Ohio study is ludicrous. I read through it a couple of times and their thesis is ridiculous and the data is the very definition of "lies, damned lies and statistics."

    I challenged him to be specific, and that I would forward his comments to you. He replied:

    "It's very simple. The paper at no point proves causation between ARRA and the net loss of private sector jobs. Instead, it engages in the statistical equivalent of a synthetic CDO to "prove" it's theory, including a stunning number of "assumptions" and "models" that are twisted to fit their conclusion.

    "One can also note that is appeared in no peer reviewed journal and has simply been seized on by the Right (including yourself) [referring to me] because it bucks the majority (conservative and liberal) view that the stimulus was net positive on jobs.

    "PS: You are welcome, of course, to point to the section of the paper that demonstrates ARRA as the cause of lost private sector jobs."

    If you would care to respond I would appreciate your input.

    Thanks, and again, excellent paper.


    icon_lol.gif Given that you can't even point to what in the paper makes you believe that their conclusions are sound whereas I pointed to several factors leading to my belief that it is unsound means you are either being purposefully naive because they share your political bent, or you're actually not bright enough to deconstruct their argument, but you support it because it fits your worldview. Either is quite sad.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 16, 2011 10:56 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    socalfitness said
    Christian73 saidThat Ohio study is ludicrous. I read through it a couple of times and their thesis is ridiculous and the data is the very definition of "lies, damned lies and statistics."

    Here is the link to the study.
    http://web.econ.ohio-state.edu/dupor/arra10_may11.pdf
    With the study at hand for us all to see, would you care to point out the shortfalls and delusions that victimized the economics professors. I'm sure they could benefit from your expertise. Tell us how they misused statistics. If you will share your insight, I will take on the task of forwarding your comments to the professors, and will post their response to you here in RealJock. I'm sure both the professors and the RJ members will benefit from your economic brilliance. So please hurry. I'm sure we are all waiting with baited breath.


    It's very simple. The paper at no point proves causation between ARRA and the net loss of private sector jobs. Instead, it engages in the statistical equivalent of a synthetic CDO to "prove" it's theory, including a stunning number of "assumptions" and "models" that are twisted to fit their conclusion.

    One can also note that is appeared in no peer reviewed journal and has simply been seized on by the Right (including yourself) because it bucks the majority (conservative and liberal) view that the stimulus was net positive on jobs. icon_rolleyes.gif

    PS: You are welcome, of course, to point to the section of the paper that demonstrates ARRA as the cause of lost private sector jobs.


    Just because you don't happen to understand it, doesn't make it "lies, damn lies, and statistics". The study very specifically looks at the causal effect of ARRA. Given that your response lacks any semblance of a coherent counter argument and fails to address the study's main points, I think I'll defer to the study over your wild conjecture.

    A specific look at how the authors drew their conclusions: http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/study-obama-stimulus-destroyed-million-private-sector-jobs/
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 16, 2011 11:30 PM GMT
    Not that I understand the arcane math in that paper (and we should all bow to socal's math wizardry in appreciating the degree of excellence in that paper), but here's a simple critique of that paper that I do understand:

    http://noahpinionblog.blogspot.com/2011/05/did-stimulus-really-destroy-million.htmlOn page 20 of their paper (Table 4), Conley and Dupor have a table that shows their main result: the number of jobs that they estimate to have been created or destroyed by the stimulus. In all private sectors, the estimates are negative. BUT, check out the confidence intervals in Table 4. With one exception, the upper limits of all the confidence intervals are highly positive. This despite the fact that they use a less-rigorous 90% confidence interval (instead of the standard 95%).

    This means that Conley and Dupor's results are statistically insignificant. Bluntly, what they have found is nothing. Formally, if we use their model to test the hypothesis that the stimulus caused a net increase in private-sector jobs, we will not be able to reject the hypothesis.


    I deal with confidence intervals all the time in medical papers, BTW.
    Tables 7 and 9 show fairly similar wide confidence intervals too, including positive numbers for upper limits.

    conclusionMy guess is that papers like this get attention because of politics, not because of science. Mankiw linked to this paper without comment, evaluation, or qualification. But he could have just as easily linked to this paper by Daniel J. Wilson, which uses a methodology similar to that of Conley and Dupor, but finds strongly positive (and often strongly significant) effects of the stimulus (and yes, Wilson uses an intercept term).

    Why did Mankiw pick the Conley-Dupor paper for a shout-out, and ignore the Wilson paper? Does he think that papers claiming that the ARRA was effective get an inordinate amount of attention? Is he trying to make the blogosphere more "fair and balanced"? Or does he just have a bone to pick with fiscal stimulus in general?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 16, 2011 11:46 PM GMT
    q1w2e3 saidNot that I understand the arcane math in that paper (and we should all bow to socal's math wizardry in appreciating the degree of excellence in that paper), but here's a simple critique of that paper that I do understand:

    http://noahpinionblog.blogspot.com/2011/05/did-stimulus-really-destroy-million.htmlOn page 20 of their paper (Table 4), Conley and Dupor have a table that shows their main result: the number of jobs that they estimate to have been created or destroyed by the stimulus. In all private sectors, the estimates are negative. BUT, check out the confidence intervals in Table 4. With one exception, the upper limits of all the confidence intervals are highly positive. This despite the fact that they use a less-rigorous 90% confidence interval (instead of the standard 95%).

    This means that Conley and Dupor's results are statistically insignificant. Bluntly, what they have found is nothing. Formally, if we use their model to test the hypothesis that the stimulus caused a net increase in private-sector jobs, we will not be able to reject the hypothesis.


    I deal with confidence intervals all the time in medical papers, BTW.
    Table 7 shows fairly similar wide confidence intervals too, including positive numbers for upper limits.

    conclusionMy guess is that papers like this get attention because of politics, not because of science. Mankiw linked to this paper without comment, evaluation, or qualification. But he could have just as easily linked to this paper by Daniel J. Wilson, which uses a methodology similar to that of Conley and Dupor, but finds strongly positive (and often strongly significant) effects of the stimulus (and yes, Wilson uses an intercept term).

    Why did Mankiw pick the Conley-Dupor paper for a shout-out, and ignore the Wilson paper? Does he think that papers claiming that the ARRA was effective get an inordinate amount of attention? Is he trying to make the blogosphere more "fair and balanced"? Or does he just have a bone to pick with fiscal stimulus in general?


    It's ironic that the Wilson paper you cite and gets quoted also notes the following: http://reason.com/blog/2010/12/03/measuring-the-effects-of-the-s -
    The results suggest that though the program did result in 2 million jobs “created or saved” by March 2010, net job creation was statistically indistinguishable from zero by August of this year. Taken at face value, this would suggest that the stimulus program (with an overall cost of $814 billion) worked only to generate temporary jobs at a cost of over $400,000 per worker. Even if the stimulus had in fact generated this level of employment as a durable outcome, it would still have been an extremely expensive way to generate employment.


    You're left with the argument of whether you would prefer to believe the study that suggests stimulus either had a net effect of zero jobs by August 2010, or destroyed half a million jobs, mostly in the private sector. So you're in the camp that believes that for a trillion dollars no net jobs were created with no inference as to what kinds of jobs were destroyed as a result?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 16, 2011 11:50 PM GMT
    The Wilson paper summarizes 6 other papers that have variably positive effects of ARRA on job creation. (tables 31 and 32)

    A rough metaanalysis: 6 positive papers + 1 neutral (but politically sold as negative") paper = positive.

    What I really like is that socal knows that the paper is so excellent and happens to ignore all those big confidence intervals. It's like me saying to a football player that I really appreciate his skill, even though I have no clue how football is played and what the various rules are. (Now soccer is a totally different thing...)
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 17, 2011 12:01 AM GMT
    q1w2e3 saidThe Wilson paper summarizes 6 other papers that have variably positive effects of ARRA on job creation. (tables 31 and 32)

    A rough metaanalysis: 6 positive papers + 1 neutral (but politically sold as negative") paper = positive.

    What I really like is that socal knows that the paper is so excellent and happens to ignore all those big confidence intervals. It's like me saying to a football player that I really appreciate his skill, even though I have no clue how football is played and what the various rules are. (Now soccer is a totally different thing...)


    Except Wilson's paper (which to be charitable to you, I will assume you didn't bother actually reading): http://www.frbsf.org/publications/economics/papers/2010/wp10-17bk.pdf ultimately concludes that there is no net impact on jobs as noted above by August 2010. He argues that yes there was an increase but it was temporary and the effect was gone.

    It also doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that these jobs were likely created in the public sector but ultimately destroyed in the private sector for a net effect of zero making the study listed above considerably more credible.

    So am I to understand your argument despite the evidence then that the Stimulus created sustainable jobs and therefore we should have more of it?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 17, 2011 12:08 AM GMT
    Wilson's conclusion was actually opposite of yours regarding public jobs created vs private jobs destroyed:

    abstractThe estimates suggest ARRA spending created or saved over 2 million jobs in its first year (ending February 2010), but that most of these jobs were short-lived. As of October 2010, the estimates point to just 0.8 million jobs attributable to ARRA spending. Across sectors, the estimated impact of ARRA spending on construction employment is especially large, implying a 19% increase in employment (as of October 2010) relative to what it would have been without the ARRA. Looking across types of spending, I find spending on infrastructure and other general purposes had a large positive impact, while aid to state governments to support Medicaid may have actually reduced state and local government employment.


    Heterogeneity of which sectors benefited most aside, the consensus of economists is that while it did not create jobs enough to reverse the losses sustained, without it, unemployment would have been a little less than double current rates. That's an achievement in itself.

    And while I'm not an economist, I can interpret confidence intervals. Thanks for the charity. icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 17, 2011 12:10 AM GMT
    Christian73 saidGiven that you can't even point to what in the paper makes you believe that their conclusions are sound whereas I pointed to several factors leading to my belief that it is unsound means you are either being purposefully naive because they share your political bent, or you're actually not bright enough to deconstruct their argument, but you support it because it fits your worldview. Either is quite sad.

    There's actually a third possibility, which is the situation. I found their paper excellent because it was reasoned, used the data appropriately and, in general, followed a scientific method. Your assertions remained non-specific and unfounded. Basically without merit. I thought rather than waste time in a discussion, it would be interesting to see if the authors decided to respond.
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    May 17, 2011 12:12 AM GMT
    Whatchu say Miss Jacjkson ?

    icon_cool.gif


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 17, 2011 12:12 AM GMT
    q1w2e3 saidWilson's conclusion was actually opposite of yours regarding public jobs created vs private jobs destroyed:

    abstractThe estimates suggest ARRA spending created or saved over 2 million jobs in its first year (ending February 2010), but that most of these jobs were short-lived. As of October 2010, the estimates point to just 0.8 million jobs attributable to ARRA spending. Across sectors, the estimated impact of ARRA spending on construction employment is especially large, implying a 19% increase in employment (as of October 2010) relative to what it would have been without the ARRA. Looking across types of spending, I find spending on infrastructure and other general purposes had a large positive impact, while aid to state governments to support Medicaid may have actually reduced state and local government employment.


    Heterogeneity of which sectors benefited most aside, the consensus of economists is that while it did not create jobs enough to reverse the losses sustained, without it, unemployment would have been a little less than double current rates. That's an achievement in itself.


    You ascribe "infrastructure spending and other general purposes" to being entirely private sector. Further, again, the study notes that there was no net effect by August 2010.

    Any consensus that you describe that "while it did not create jobs enough to reverse the losses sustained, without it, unemployment would have been a little less than double current rates" exists solely in your fantasies. Quite the opposite, the results of stimulus in every respect were a disappointment to the original claims when the bill was being sold to the American public.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 17, 2011 12:12 AM GMT
    riddler78 said
    q1w2e3 saidThe Wilson paper summarizes 6 other papers that have variably positive effects of ARRA on job creation. (tables 31 and 32)

    A rough metaanalysis: 6 positive papers + 1 neutral (but politically sold as negative") paper = positive.

    What I really like is that socal knows that the paper is so excellent and happens to ignore all those big confidence intervals. It's like me saying to a football player that I really appreciate his skill, even though I have no clue how football is played and what the various rules are. (Now soccer is a totally different thing...)


    Except Wilson's paper (which to be charitable to you, I will assume you didn't bother actually reading): http://www.frbsf.org/publications/economics/papers/2010/wp10-17bk.pdf ultimately concludes that there is no net impact on jobs as noted above by August 2010. He argues that yes there was an increase but it was temporary and the effect was gone.

    It also doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that these jobs were likely created in the public sector but ultimately destroyed in the private sector for a net effect of zero making the study listed above considerably more credible.


    Again, in the bolded part of your quote, and after claiming my ignorance because I wont' fall for their voodoo calculations which do not show causality you prove my entire point. Correlation not equaling causation is something most college freshman understand. icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 17, 2011 12:16 AM GMT
    The CBO has a chart on it:
    692px-CBO_GDP_impact_of_ARRA_2009.png

    I wish I can find the one with jobs--there:

    Estimates_of_the_effects_of_the_ARRA_on_