@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:
Saving a few jobs in various state government bureaucracies and hiring thousands of temporary workers for the periodic census does indeed help soothe the pain of our worst quarters following the onset of a recession, but it does not stimulate significant economic activity.
Census workers weren't hired out of the Stim bill. At all. The ARRA provided for 1 billion for the census, but that money was used mostly on advertising. What more, the entire Census came in something like 7 billion under budget this year.
As to jobs in general, from Wikipedia(You can access the primary sources for these claims by following the link below):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Recovery_and_Reinvestment_Act_of_2009#Developments_under_the_Act
Quote:One year after the stimulus, several independent macroeconomic firms including Moody's and IHS Global Insight estimated that the stimulus saved or created 1.6 to 1.8 million jobs and forecasted a total impact of 2.5 million jobs saved by the time the stimulus is completed.[76] The Congressional Budget Office considered these estimates conservative.[77] The CBO estimated 2.1 million jobs saved in the last quarter of 2009, boosting the economy by up to 3.5 percent and lowering the unemployment rate by up to 2.1 percent.[78] The CBO projected that the package would have an even greater impact in 2010.[78] The CBO also said, "It is impossible to determine how many of the reported jobs would have existed in the absence of the stimulus package."[79] The CBO's report on the first quarter of 2010 showed a continued positive effect, with an employment gain in that quarter of up to 2.8 million and a GDP boost of up to 4.2 percent.[80]
So, yeah. You are not correct in your assessment.
Quote: Creating enormous new entitlements
<cough>
Medicare part D <cough>. Republicans don't give a **** about starting new, expensive, long-term entitlements and federal programs, when they get to take the credit for it and their political and business allies are the ones who benefit from them. Or wars for that matter.
;
Quote:sponsoring a diverse set of new anti business regulations
The same businesses whose behaviors directly led to the loss of billions if not trillions of dollars of wealth in this country and a recession. They
need diverse and new regulations. They have proven that they will not self-regulate. Nothing about their business models promotes or rewards moderation or regulation. You could not envision a scenario which signaled a greater need for regulation than the one we have been experiencing.
This comment of yours is ridiculous.
Quote:attempting to raise energy costs throughout the economy;
True enough, though they have good reasons to do so.
Quote: and calling for tax increases on entrepreneurs, small businesses and S corporations
Actually, it is Bush and the Republican Congress of 2001 and 2003 who called for these tax increases. After all, that's how they designed these bills to begin with, remember?
Besides, let's be honest. The arguments put forth that modest tax increases on these groups will harm business in this country are full of ****. They are without merit and are not based on an examination of the historical record. One can easily look at several periods in the last 100 years in which taxes were MUCH higher, yet businesses flourished and the doom-and-gloom scenarios the Republicans
constantly put forth simply didn't come to pass.
Quote:Worse they don't acknowledge the obvious result of what they have done. Instead they fault the people for not adequately understanding their good intentions.
I find this to be humorous, because your arguments are only 'obviously' right because you have convinced yourself that are. Things like evidence or the historical record don't seem to be prime factors in your consideration of political situations.
Quote:It seems to me that your highly selective reporting of facts indicates that you should be far more restrained in accusing others here of lies.
I have already proven that you are indeed lying about this issue, by providing you direct evidence - not just my assertions - that the things you say are not true. You responded to many of these posts so I know you read them. Yet you persist in repeating statements that you know are factually untrue. I don't know how else to describe it.
It seems that along with 'obstructionist,' you don't have an actual working definition of 'liar.' I suppose as long as you are forwarding your core ideological point, you consider it to be, well, downright justified.
Cycloptichorn
