This Graphic says it all.........

[JustRalph]

Stimulus?........ I am waiting for the lefties to come along and say it would be worse without it............

[mostpost]

Originally Posted by JustRalph

Stimulus?........ I am waiting for the lefties to come along and say it would be worse without it............

When you handicap a race, do you look at Jockey stats and ignore all the other factors? Here are some other factors in the economic horse race
J F M A M J J A S O N D
2008 -10 -50 -33 -149 -231 -193 -210 -334 -458 -554 -728 -673
J F M A M J J A S O
2009 -779 -726 -753 -528(C) -387(C) -515(C) -346(C) -212(C) -225 -224
N D
64 -109

J F M A M J
2010 14 39 208 313 433(P) -125(P)

The above shows the number of jobs lost or gained in each month since the beginning of 2008. In 9 of the 12 months from Feb. 2008 to Jan 2009 we lost more jobs than we lost in the previous month
From February of 2009 to june of 2010 we gained jobs or lost less than the previous month 12 times while losing more jobs than the previous month 5 times.
To put it another way, during the twelve months of 2008 and 2/3 of January 2009 we lost jobs at a rate of 326,000 jobs a month. during the 17.333 months since Obama took office the rate of loss has dropped to 180,000 per month. Still not great. But better.

And yes, I will say it would have been much worse without the stimulus. And it would have been much better had the Republicans not fought every attempt by Obama to fix the problem.

[JustRalph]

Originally Posted by mostpost

When you handicap a race, do you look at Jockey stats and ignore all the other factors?

all that really matters is what is on the chart after the race.......and a year and half later........no hope, and obviously no change.

[newtothegame]

Originally Posted by mostpost

When you handicap a race, do you look at Jockey stats and ignore all the other factors? Here are some other factors in the economic horse race
J F M A M J J A S O N D
2008 -10 -50 -33 -149 -231 -193 -210 -334 -458 -554 -728 -673
J F M A M J J A S O
2009 -779 -726 -753 -528(C) -387(C) -515(C) -346(C) -212(C) -225 -224
N D
64 -109

J F M A M J
2010 14 39 208 313 433(P) -125(P)

The above shows the number of jobs lost or gained in each month since the beginning of 2008. In 9 of the 12 months from Feb. 2008 to Jan 2009 we lost more jobs than we lost in the previous month
From February of 2009 to june of 2010 we gained jobs or lost less than the previous month 12 times while losing more jobs than the previous month 5 times.
To put it another way, during the twelve months of 2008 and 2/3 of January 2009 we lost jobs at a rate of 326,000 jobs a month. during the 17.333 months since Obama took office the rate of loss has dropped to 180,000 per month. Still not great. But better.

And yes, I will say it would have been much worse without the stimulus. And it would have been much better had the Republicans not fought every attempt by Obama to fix the problem.

hey mosty....do us a favor...us old guys anyways lol...
How about posting a link first..and secondly...how about private sector versus public sector...might give a little bit clearer picture.

[JustRalph]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38053726...s_and_economy/

[newtothegame]

Well damn ralph...the link you posted shows his last month numbers...but that story from MSNBC does NOT paint a rosy picture as mosty would have us believe.

by CHRISTOPHER S. RUGABER and JEANNINE AVERSA

updated 7/2/2010 5:32:42 PM ET
WASHINGTON — A second straight month of lackluster hiring by American businesses is sapping strength from the economic rebound.

The jobless rate fell to 9.5 percent in June, still far too high to signal a healthy economy. It came in slightly lower than the month before only because more than a half-million people gave up looking for work and were no longer counted as unemployed.

The private sector added just 83,000 jobs for the month. Looked at from that angle or almost any other, from a teetering housing market to falling factory orders, the recovery is limping along as it enters the year's second half. And that is when the benefits of most of the government's stimulus spending will begin to wear off.

The fate of the economy will hinge on whether it can stand on its own. President Barack Obama acknowledged the slow pace of the recovery and used the new jobs figures to argue for more stimulus spending and extended unemployment benefits.

"We're not headed there fast enough for a lot of Americans," the president said. "We're not headed there fast enough for me, either."

Overall, the nation's total payroll actually shrank last month by 125,000, the first decline in six months, the Labor Department said Friday. The loss reflected the end of 225,000 temporary jobs helping the U.S. Census Bureau complete its 10-year head count.

Bolding by me.....

Yep Mosty, that there's a GREAT picture.....

[hcap]

"June unemployment data released this morning: At 9.5 percent (a slight drop from May), the jobless rate is almost exactly where it was at this point in Reagan's first term. (The June 1982 rate was 9.6 percent). Moreover, the growth in unemployment over the first 18 months of Obama's presidency is essentially the same as it was during Reagan's. When Obama took office, the jobless rate was 7.6 percent; for Reagan, it was 7.5%. This, more than anything else, explains why Obama's political position in the summer of 2010 is so similar to what Reagan's was in the summer of '82. And it suggests that Obama could still enjoy the dramatic political rebound that marked the second half of Reagan's first term."



At least Obama doesn't consider ketchup a vegetable

[Pace Cap'n]

Originally Posted by mostpost

To put it another way, during the twelve months of 2008 and 2/3 of January 2009 we lost jobs at a rate of 326,000 jobs a month. during the 17.333 months since Obama took office the rate of loss has dropped to 180,000 per month. Still not great. But better.

Has it occurred to you that when there are fewer jobs to be lost, that the rate of loss will therefore decrease?

[Greyfox]

Originally Posted by hcap

"

At least Obama doesn't consider ketchup a vegetable

Good one hcap...

[RaceBookJoe]

Originally Posted by hcap

"June unemployment data released this morning: At 9.5 percent (a slight drop from May), the jobless rate is almost exactly where it was at this point in Reagan's first term. (The June 1982 rate was 9.6 percent). Moreover, the growth in unemployment over the first 18 months of Obama's presidency is essentially the same as it was during Reagan's. When Obama took office, the jobless rate was 7.6 percent; for Reagan, it was 7.5%. This, more than anything else, explains why Obama's political position in the summer of 2010 is so similar to what Reagan's was in the summer of '82. And it suggests that Obama could still enjoy the dramatic political rebound that marked the second half of Reagan's first term."



At least Obama doesn't consider ketchup a vegetable

No, but its Obummer's favorite condiment in all 57 states he visits.

[Tom]

the jobless rate is almost exactly where it was at this point in Reagan's first term.

How many, at that time, had already given up and dropped out of the job market all together?

Really WEAK argument, hcap.

[Greyfox]

Originally Posted by mostpost

J F M A M J J A S O N D
2008 -10 -50 -33 -149 -231 -193 -210 -334 -458 -554 -728 -673
J F M A M J J A S O
2009 -779 -726 -753 -528(C) -387(C) -515(C) -346(C) -212(C) -225 -224
N D
64 -109

J F M A M J
2010 14 39 208 313 433(P) -125(P)

.

Huh? You're not one of the 469 employees at the White House are you?
Surely you previewed that dog's breakfast before you posted it.
Is that a White House Keno game of some type??

[Tom]

Teleprompter test pattern.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by JustRalph

all that really matters is what is on the chart after the race.......and a year and half later........no hope, and obviously no change.

Mosty, allow me to add to JR's spot-on rebuttal. Since you brought up horse racing, let's look at the game from a wagering standpoint via another of my outstanding and brilliant analogies. (Sorry, but your jockey one was quite lame. We could liken the "stimulus" to betting on horse races, could we not? BO and his horde of Dem(on)s were betting on that the money "targeted" in certain areas of the economy (races) would "WIN" over the day. It would turn (change) a losing economy into a winning one, which very clearly it has not. So...when muddle-headed thinkers like yourself jump on board the party line of having to resort to selling to the public how well the stimulus worked in negative terms (i.e. well, look how worse things would be...), this reveals the real skinny -- which is there is no real positive in the economy.

I take it that you actually play the ponies? I mean...you actually bet money - real money on the outcomes or races? If so, let me liken you to the recession when BO took office. In other words, you were a losing player. And you want to CHANGE that, so you go out and borrow money you don't have to buy a library and some really fancy, hoidy toidy books to study up on the game so that you can become a winning player. Then you go out and borrow more $$$ spend a lot more bucks on some sophisticated piece of sofware -- maybe Pizzolla's Black Magic software or some such thing -- and you study and practice and borrow more money to spend on downloading files day after day so that you can become intimately familiar with all the nuances of the program.

So now after going deep into debt, you borrow even more money because you think you're ready for the big time. You're ready for a self-transformational experience -- you're all set to transform yourself from a losing player into a winning one. That's real change, if you can pull it off (which in your case, would be highly doubtful )
But be that as it may -- after playing for a few months and keeping accurate records of your wagers, you find that you're still not out of the Red Ink Forest. While maybe previously, you were losing the vig, now you're losing "only" to the sad tune 13%. What do you have to show for all the money you've borrowed to spend to change yourself into a winning player? What? Nothing. Nada. Zilch. And the end of the day, you're still a loser. The only thing that has changed is that you have "changed" from being a fast bleeder to a slower one. And to compound the problem, you're still in debt, and your ongoing losses will require more borrowing if you want to stay in the game. And knowing you, you would justify that additional borrowing and spending -- you would perpetuate this vicious borrowing-spending cycle -- with the excuse that you short-changed yourself by not borrowing enough in the first place because you grossly underestimated just what a lousy player you really are.

And so it is with BO's "stimulus", out-of-control spending. If you go back and listen to all the promises before all these stimuli packages were passed into law, you won't find any promises that all that money would merely slow the recession down. No. It was supposed to affect real change -- stop the bleeding and get the U.S. economy healthy again. But this hasn't happened, has it? And this is is precisely why now, all this waste and useless and irresponsible and reckless borrowing and spending is being justified in negative terms ("Well, things aint' as bad as they would have been..."). This is called, moving the goal post when you can't get the ball into the end zone!

Boxcar
P.S. Here'a s real tip for you: Don't pay too much mind on who is riding the horse today. Focus, instead, on the horse because the game ain't called jockey racing.

[mostpost]

Originally Posted by newtothegame

hey mosty....do us a favor...us old guys anyways lol...
How about posting a link first..and secondly...how about private sector versus public sector...might give a little bit clearer picture.

Old guys? You are 27 years younger than me. But, you are right. Here is the link from whence I obtained my figures.
http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/Surv..._view=net_1mth

As for private vs. public, I don't know. To me that is a specious argument. A person working in a public sector is contributing just as a person in a private sector job is; the fireman, the policeman, yes even the mailman.
It isn't just the person who produces a product that contributes to the economy. A product is useless without a salesman to sell it, a truck driver to deliver it, a technician to install and/or repair it. Plus you need people to maintain inventory control (no business will survive not knowing how many and what color and kind of widgets they have in stock), people to handle customer complaints, people to fill orders, people to bring Newt coffee. etc.

You can justifiably argue that the census jobs gave an optomistic picture of employment. Nonetheless, those folks had jobs for that period, they were off tthe unemployment roles and were not collecting compensation.