How Many Jobs Have Been Saved Or Created?

It all depends on who you ask:

Axelrod, on CNN’s State of the Union: “But understand that, in this recession that began at the beginning of 2007, we’ve lost 7 million jobs. Now, the Recovery Act the president passed has created more than — or saved more than 2 million jobs. But against 7 million, you know, that — that is — it is cold comfort to those who still are looking.”

Jarrett, on NBC’s Meet the Press: “The Recovery Act saved thousands and thousands of jobs. There are schoolteachers and firemen and— and— teachers all across our country, policemen, who have jobs today because of that recovery act. We’re investing in infrastructure. We’re investing in public education so that our kids can compete going forth into the next— generation.”

Gibbs, on “Fox News Sunday”: “Well, Chris, let’s take for instance the example you just used of the stimulus package. We had four quarters of economic regression in terms of growth, right? Just last quarter, we finally saw the first positive economic job growth in more than a year. Largely as a result of the recovery plan that’s put money back into our economy, that saved or created 1.5 million jobs.” Politico

It would seem that Obama’s people don’t actually know how many jobs have been created and the idea that saved jobs can be measured is bogus. The administration dreamed up this category to tout success that can’t possibly be measured. The guidelines used to indicate a “saved” job are nonsensical and were dreamed up to give the appearance of success.

Jobs are counted as saved if stimulus money went to them even if they were not in danger of being lost. The formula originally used allowed for more jobs saved than actually existed in the companies. If any stimulus money is spent on a job (like giving a pay raise) then it is considered saved. It is a sham.

Now the administration spin masters are out talking up the numbers in an effort to show some kind of success even though the stimulus has been a dismal failure.

I would think that if they were all going to go on different networks to discuss this they could all coordinate their lies.

Big Dog

Gunline

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.



Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

57 Responses to “How Many Jobs Have Been Saved Or Created?”

  1. Adam says:

    “Now the administration spin masters are out talking up the numbers in an effort to show some kind of success even though the stimulus has been a dismal failure.”

    I must again ask you by which measurement are you saying the stimulus has been a dismal failure? Certainly not the stock market. It’s way up. Certainly not economic growth. The recession has pretty much ended, meaning the economy is growing, not shrinking anymore. We had strong growth in the last quarter. Certainly not unemployment. This will be the last to get better and we see that jobs were added in November and could be again in January or February or pretty close like December. Saying “dismal” would imply something it failed terribly so I’m sure you can tell us in which way that is true.

    The problem with the three quotes is they aren’t all that different. Gibbs is quoting a CBO figure that is based on September numbers. It’s not out of the question to say 2 million instead of 1.5 since it’s been 4 or 5 months ago that it was 1.5. The quote about thousands and thousands is talking about jobs saved, not jobs “created or saved” as the other two are. This is bogus crap being parroted by regressives like yourself. This work is typical of Politico which is more and more of a shill for the GOP every day.

  2. Big Dog says:

    I knew it would not be long before the apologists came out. The stock market is following the trend that nearly every recession has followed. Recessions have characteristics and this one is following those. In other words, we did not need to spend the trillion dollars to recover.

    The jobs numbers are a problem and there will be inflation following all the money printing.

    The stimulus was about jobs. Obama said it was about jobs. He told us that we needed to do it to keep unemployment below 8%. We did it and UE is at 10%. It did not do what he said it would, it is a dismal failure, one we will be paying for for a long time.

    • Adam says:

      What would qualify as a success to you when it comes to the stimulus?

    • Adam says:

      “Recessions have characteristics and this one is following those. In other words, we did not need to spend the trillion dollars to recover.”

      Which characteristics are those? We’re seeing this one as the deepest recession since the Great Depression but yet leveled off and grew quicker than any recession in the last 100 years. Your argument is that would be possible without the stimulus? Not according to experts such as the CBO.

  3. victoria says:

    Didn’t I just read somewhere that job losses unexpectedly rose again.

  4. victoria says:

    http://hotair.com/archives/2010/01/21/jobless-claims-unexpectedly-rise-again/
    Here it is right here. Like the guy says–“unexpectedly”–try “predictably.”

  5. Adam says:

    Unemployment will reach 11% or more before it actually starts going down again. I’m sure you’ll all still harp on that and harp on that going on about predictions and expectations. The truth is the Romer report that graphs the prediction states that there was “considerable uncertainty” in their estimates because the “impact of the package on GDP and the relationship between higher GDP and job creation are hard to estimate precisely.”

    Yet, GDP grew by 2.2% in Q3 and is expected to have grown somewhere between 3% and 5.5% in Q4. Experts don’t expect any quarter in 2010 to be as strong as Q4 of 2009 but the growth will be there and the jobs will follow.

    Decent growth in Q3, strong growth in Q4, unemployment that has leveled off and will decline some this year…all of this of course just somehow proves to you the stimulus is a dismal failure?

    • Big Dog says:

      Your leader told us that unemployment would hit 11% without the stimulus and would stay below 8 or 8.5% with it. They passed it and the rate hit > 10%. By their definition (and subsequent admissions) it did not do what they anticipated which is failure.

      The GDP grew artificially from C4C and the home buyer’s tax credit two items that do not provide long term growth. Both caused people to take on debt that they probably should not have and drew sales into an earlier quarter, sales that would have happened in later quarters. C4C ended up consting 3 or 4 times the $4500 per car and while the GDP rose it will go back down. Inflation will hit and there will be a double dip recession.

      The housing market was the main culprit (thanks to Dodd, Frank and others) and it will lag for a while. The amount of money infused will certainly affect some things but there is no cost benefit. The recession was prolonged because of the stimulus and we might end up double dipping, in part because of it.

      • Adam says:

        “The recession was prolonged because of the stimulus…”

        What is your evidence of that? Is it all simply because the Romer report says it will be a certain level with and without it and that’s wrong? I don’t understand how that is evidence. Unemployment was higher than predicted in the Romer report before Obama even signed the stimulus bill.

        • Big Dog says:

          Like I said, history bears it out:

          Even the time between recessions is expanding, but all of these trends could be reversed if a recent pattern—increased government intervention—continues.

          Severe recessions occurred in 1836, 1907, and 1921. The government intervened in none of them, and, as a result, each recession lasted no longer than a year. Contrast this with the proactive response to the 1929 panic. President Herbert Hoover promoted heavy government intervention by supporting the Smoot-Hawley tariff, establishing federal agencies like the Reconstruction Finance Corporation to grant massive loans to banks, and enacting taxes on items like checks. In real dollars, the federal budget almost doubled during Hoover’s tenure in the White House.

          FDR’s New Deal had many faces—beginning with successful strategies like cutting federal spending and expansionary monetary policy. But later polices, including new spending on federal work programs and tax hikes, undermined economic recovery. In 1939, FDR’s treasury secretary, Henry Morgenthau, said, “We are spending more money than we have ever spent before and it does not work. . . after eight years of this administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started and an enormous debt to boot.” If history is any indicator, recent bailouts and stimulus packages are destined to fail as well.

          State lawmakers should study history and understand that government intervention hampers the recovery of the economy and supplants the private sector, while placing an enormous burden on future generations. In short, when government tries to create or retain jobs that consumers have deemed unnecessary, it inhibits both short- and long-term growth.

          Link

        • Adam says:

          That’s all good, except the recession was already longer than average before any government intervention began and many folks believe the recession ended just a few months after the stimulus passed.

          So, I’m not really seeing what their article is getting at or how that proves government intervention in general or the stimulus specifically prolonged this recession.

          The stimulus has always been geared primarily toward recovery, something your article doesn’t delve into when it comes to the recessions they highlighted.

        • Blake says:

          Adam- if something is propped up artificially, as the economy has been, instead of being allowed to take its losses, heal, and move on, the recession is indeed prolonged. The evidence is just common sense- you have to let a fever run its course, or the patient continues to linger in that state of ennui- and recovery is not truly able to affect itself.
          I have been a carpenter for forty years, and I have seen these things come and go, and those that are given no artificial help resolve themselves quicker than those that well- meaning idiots tinker with.
          In O’bamma’s case, he is not well- meaning, he is malignant.

        • Adam says:

          “The evidence is just common sense…”

          In other words: Blake has no evidence to back up his or Big Dog’s preaching on government intervention into recessions prolonging it. He’ll call it common sense as if it’s all just self-evident despite basis in verifiable information…

        • Darrel says:

          ADM: “Blake has no evidence to back up his or Big Dog’s preaching… as if it’s all just self-evident…”>>

          DAR
          As my friend Doug put this the other day to someone tried passing along “self-evident” as their evidence:

          “DOUG
          Once you have reached the point where you appeal to something as being self-evident, especially to opponents who seem to disagree with your basic outlook, you have reached the end of you argument. Nothing more can be said to defend your views.

          But be aware that when you appeal to self-evident views, you are using an appeal that can be used to “justify” anything, including misogyny, racism, etc. It is an appeal of last resort, and one who uses it can never expect to be convincing except when preaching to the converted.”

          • Big Dog says:

            I imagine that any view could be used to justify but the idea of self evidence was used to make this country great:

            We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. US Declaration of Independence [emphasis mine]

            It is good that we hold these truths to be self evident or people like you and your leader would be working even harder to enslave us. The Founders found this self evident and were not at the end of their argument but at the beginning which eventually ended with a resounding victory and the birth of a Nation.

            • Adam says:

              I guess this is just one more way you imagine yourselves as patriots fighting tyranny in the US: Holding things to be self-evident when really you just don’t have any evidence to back up your claim. Figures…

            • Big Dog says:

              Now who is implying something that does not exist?

              Imagine ourselves to be patriots? Imagine? Those of us who are patriots do not have to imagine.

              Suit up or shut up…

            • Adam says:

              That would be fine if only you could separate your actual, considerable service to our country from the imaginary revolutionary fantasies that you and your other regressive party members constantly take part in.

              It’s everything from the armed racist Minutemen movement to the white conservative Tea Party movement. Your side can’t help but foolishly wrap yourselves in the American flag and the dreams of our founders as you pretend you have the high ground on patriotism in order to justify your paranoia and your reactionary world view.

              I would think that kind of faux outrage against imaginary threats would be a disgrace to those like yourself that actually have served our country to protect us against real threats. I’ve been wrong before though…

            • Big Dog says:

              And of course you are wrong now. You call these things perceived threats and this mindset is what allowed us to ignore the events leading to 9/11

              You call the Minutemen racists (I wonder if you would call the original ones racisst as well) and demonstrate your ignorance because race plays no part in the issue. First of all, they are trying to stop all invaders and second of all Mexican is not a race. I have educated you on this before but everything is racism to you.

              The Tea Party movement has many people and not all of them are white. You are a racist for uttering such nonsense.

              The problem with you is that you have this unreal view of the world and you have no ability to grasp any issue that can be or has been a problem. You have no ability to see potential threats because you believe that people can all hold hands and get along. That is not the case.

              As nathan R Jessup said, those walls have to be guarded.

              I know you won’t do it so other, better men, must.

              My revolutionary fanatasies, as you call them, involve overthrowing the government through the peaceful process we call elections.

              However, I always remain at the ready in the event goverment gets out of control.

              People did not see Hitler’s government as a threat until it was too late or because they held views like you, that government would never hurt its people.

              I an those like me who took the oath will continue to uphold peaceful removal of politicians by way o fthe election but we all stand ready to defend the Constitution should that be necessary. We took an oath to it, not to the people in DC.

              If you and your limp wristed latte drinking tofu sucking friends do not like that or want to make fun of it then you have that right.

              People like me made sure of it.

            • Adam says:

              “I wonder if you would call the original ones racist as well”

              Why would I?

              “…race plays no part in the issue.”

              Ah, yes. Of course not. The whack jobs watching the border with their guns were all just patriots doing it for the good of the country and have no ties whatsoever to white supremacy or nativist ideology, do they? Nope.

              “You have no ability to see potential threats because you believe that people can all hold hands and get along.”

              You mean I didn’t overreact to my party being voted out of office just to spend the next 4 years crying about tyranny and calling myself a patriot for opposing this democratically elected majority?

              “People did not see Hitler’s government as a threat until it was too late or because they held views like you, that government would never hurt its people.”

              See, I don’t know why people would mistake you as delusional and all, comparing the current climate to Nazi Germany, something you chided liberals for just a few years back.

              “We took an oath to it, not to the people in DC.”

              Did you also take an oath to be overly dramatic and gin up imaginary threats against our country that you can talk tough about and puff out your chest over?

              “If you and your limp wristed latte drinking tofu sucking friends do not like that or want to make fun of it then you have that right.”

              Now you’re just hurting my feelings. What did tofu ever do to you?

            • Adam says:

              But again don’t get me wrong. I do think there are forms of patriotism and patriots out there. I just think there is a vast difference between real patriotism and what the right perceives as patriotism.

              It’s possibly one of the most annoying and moronic qualities of the American right wing. You don’t see us as differing in opinion on how to run this government, how to spend or not spend tax dollars, etc. No, your side thinks my side is a bunch of godless, socialist morons out to destroy this country and you aim to stop us because you’re a bunch of godly patriots. You cannot help but frame everything this way.

            • Darrel says:

              Bigd: “The Founders found this self evident and were not at the end of their argument…”>>

              DAR
              Actually, they were, completely. And they were hypocrites. As George Carlin liked to point out, the same fellows who in one breath said all men are created equal, owned slaves.

              They wanted to create a country and they wanted it to be based upon the notion that all are created equal and have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That’s nice but it doesn’t change the fact that saying it is “self-evident” isn’t an argument or reason to believe. And it never will be.

              D.

  6. Big Dog says:

    The money that the government sent out on how many occasions, was not intervention? Bush and Congress sent rebates at least twice.

    This stimulus was not geared toward recovery any more than the actions of 1929 which led to disaster. This stimulus paid off political debt. Where are the shovel ready projects? Where are all the things being built? Where are the jobs? If this stimulus was supposed to create jobs which is what they said it would do then where are the jobs? If all these projects are being done where are the jobs?

    No, political payoffs that did not involve creating jobs (can’t measure the bogus saved job).

    • Adam says:

      I suppose if you count the rebates that were aimed at preventing a recession, as opposed to the bailouts and the stimulus which came over a year into the recession then you could say there was government intervention.

      You have yet to provide evidence of how that intervention prolonged the recession though. The article you cite simply says the cases where there was little or no intervention were in shorter recessions. Neither the article you cite or you yourself have provided any evidence as to why or how that worked.

      “This stimulus was not geared toward recovery … ”

      Except that 70% of the money will be spent in the time of recovery as opposed to to during the recession.

      “If all these projects are being done where are the jobs?”

      All over. Do you want 4% unemployment just 6 months after the assumed end of the recession for there to be some success story on stimulus jobs?

    • Darrel says:

      “The stimulus? The pricetag was much less than what most economists were advocating for. And ABOUT HALF OF IT WAS TAX CUTS…” –Nate Silver, Link.

      [caps mine]

  7. Big Dog says:

    70% of the money will be spent just prior to a big election, who are they trying to fool. If the money was designed to end the recession then why wait until the “recovery” before spending most of it? If spending money would end a recession then shouldn’t they have spent most of it in the recession?

    Adam, if the stimulus was designed to make jobs and they keep claiming that it worked and there are jobs created and saved then why has the rate not dropped? I don’t think it needs to be 4% tomorrow but declining in number would be a step in the right direction.

    We shall see but there will be inflation, the money will burden future generations, the government will be bankrupt or damn near it and we will not be better off for along time. We would have climbed out without the stimulus and likely been having a greater recovery (if we arer truly having one now).

    What do you mean assumed end? A recession is over after two consecutive quarters of GDP growth. Have we had that and if so has it been 6 months since we did? I think not.

    For a trillion dollars I don’t want some success, I want huge success.

    • Adam says:

      “70% of the money will be spent just prior to a big election, who are they trying to fool.”

      You’re just getting into strange conspiracy now. The money was to be spread out over 2009, 2010, 2011 and beyond. The goal of the stimulus was to help bring an end to the recession and ease and hasten the recovery. This has always been the case. The majority of money was always to be spent on recovery.

      “…why has the rate not dropped?”

      Because the rate of creation has not yet consistently exceeded the rate of decline in jobs from month to month. It will though, just give it time. The economy cannot recover from a dip this low in the time you pretend it should. We’re nearing a year since the stimulus now and I don’t think anyone expects you to change your opinion based on facts or reality considering you called the stimulus a failure after 1 week.

      “What do you mean assumed end?”

      The end date of the recession is not the end of the consecutive quarter of which the growth occurred. NBER will make a determination of when exactly the change occurred and declare that date as the end. It most likely ended in June of 2009 in Q3, 6 months ago. But again, I say assumed because it all depends on what NBER decides.

      • Big Dog says:

        So if the recession was over in June 09 at a time when very litle money had been spent, why did we need to spend more?

        Political payoff.

        And, the continued intervention has slowed recovery.

        • Adam says:

          “So if the recession was over in June 09 at a time when very litle money had been spent, why did we need to spend more?”

          I guess reading for comprehension is out of the question for you today? Again, the stimulus was spent in order to speed an end to the recession and to make recovery easier. If it had to simply do with ending the recession they might have had more than about 23% of the spending fall in the first year instead of having 75% or so spread mostly over the 2nd and 3rd year which would be the recovery time.

          “The recession was prolonged because of the stimulus…”

          No proof of this, though right? So you get to the new quote:

          “And, the continued intervention has slowed recovery.”

          How about evidence of that? Or will you just move the goal posts again?

  8. Big Dog says:

    The goal posts were not moved. It is all about perspective. You have no proof that it has worked. If the goal was to speed an end to the recession why is the money spread out over 3 years, as you claim it is? If the goal was speed why is it seven months after you claim it ended and things are still bad and on the verge of another downturn?

    Show me evidence that it has gotten better. There is no wholesale evidence that it has gotten better. Some numbers got a little better and some got a little worse but there is no rubust success. The amount of success, if any can be claimed, is not worth the trillion dollars we spent when history shows us it would get better without government intervention.

    • Adam says:

      “If the goal was to speed an end to the recession why is the money spread out over 3 years, as you claim it is?”

      That is not the only goal of the stimulus. Are you reading today? Recovery is always 2 or 3 times as long as a recession. That is why most of the money is to be spent during recovery.

      “If the goal was speed why is it seven months after you claim it ended and things are still bad and on the verge of another downturn?”

      Perhaps you didn’t notice the -15.2% drop in GDP between Q3 2008 and Q2 2009? You do not recover from that in 7 months, not with the stimulus package that was passed.

      “You have no proof that it has worked.”

      Wrong. I have the CBO’s study from November that claims it created and saved jobs. I have the Bloomberg article talking about a survey of economists who say the stimulus has worked.

      Now, not every part of the stimulus has worked as well as liked or at all. In general though there is a sense of success so far with what money has been spent and there will be more success stories down the road. I don’t expect you to notice that though since you judged the stimulus as a failure from day one and heaven forbid you revise your opinion on the subject based on actual reality instead of GOP spin…

  9. Big Dog says:

    The same CBO that grossly underestimates costs of programs because it is only allowed to score what it is given? Not credible and you cannot measure a saved job but the CBO would use the Obama formula that says if any money is spent on a job it is saved EVEN IF IT WAS NOT IN DANGER OF BEING LOST.

    And many economists say that it has not worked. We are not getting our money’s worth.

    It is a failure, no jobs, no stimulated economy, no nothing.

    • Adam says:

      “Not credible and…”

      The CBO goes into great length about how they arrive at the conclusion of the effects of the stimulus. You write them off in a few lines of rubbish. Good work.

      “And many economists say that it has not worked.”

      Many as part of an actual study of opinions of economists or is this just the same anecdotal, unverifiable nonsense that you always give me?

      “It is a failure, no jobs, no stimulated economy, no nothing.”

      Yes, if you throw out all evidence to the contrary and substitute it with this BS you pass off for reasoned argument. I guess being utterly dishonest is pretty easy for you isn’t it?

      • Big Dog says:

        I know how the CBO arrives at what it does.

        I am tired of arguing with you about it because I really don’t care what you believe or if you believe.

        Talk to me in June. If it is better then I will say you were right. If it is not, then I don’t expect to hear more of this bunk.

        • Adam says:

          Tired? Yes, it is very exhausting the way you ignore reality and evidence to the contrary of your unfounded opinion, isn’t it?

          You have not presented one shred of evidence of how the stimulus has made the economy worse, or how the stimulus has delayed recovery, or why you feel the experts at the CBO saying the opposite of what you believe are somehow incorrect.

          But sure, run away and pretend you are right despite any evidence for believing so…

  10. Big Dog says:

    No Adam, any evidence goes by you in your desire to suck Obama’s toes.

    You are one of the morons who said that the economy was bad under Bush despite a low unemployment so you lack certain credibility in any issue like this.

    There is a mountain of evidence and there is history. I know you socialists think that it never worked because smart people did not do it but this is a failure and it will get a lot worse.

    We can wait and see.

    And no, it is tiring seeing you slobber over Obama and all he does.

    Quit making excuses and unless you can prove I am a liar, quit calling me one.

    • Adam says:

      “No Adam, any evidence goes by you in your desire to suck Obama’s toes.”

      “And no, it is tiring seeing you slobber over Obama and all he does.”

      When in doubt, deflect, deflect? Pretend it’s my bias that prevents me from seeing it your way and not your utter lack of evidence. You have ZERO evidence and your understanding of history comes from think tank talking points you cull from Google searches that back up your world view. It’s rubbish and you know it.

      I cannot say what the economy will be doing in 6 months or a year but I can say that I have credible experts in economics that back up my belief that the economy has gotten better, not worse because of the stimulus. What is it you have again?

      • Big Dog says:

        The same as you, think tank people who agree with what you believe.

        So one of us will be correct.

        And history is what it is, not the rewritten claptrap you learned in school.

        • Adam says:

          I don’t care much for think tanks. I prefer folks like the CBO to back up my view of economics.

          The only history you know is revisionist garbage you pass off as history. Clinton never balanced the budget, FDR made a Great Depression out of a regular recession, etc.

  11. Big Dog says:

    Those are verifiable historical facts. The balanced budget you tout was balanced on paper and said if we spend only this amount we will be balanced and then they spent more.

    Clinton never had a budget surplus as shown a number of times using the numbers from that think tank known as the treasury. Refute those numbers, show me the surplus if you think you can. Saying it does not make it so.

    Read a book about the Great Depression sometime and see if you can actually learn about the things that took place that prolonged the problem and drove us into depression. People were starving and he had them destroy crop fields. How is that for stupidity?

    Start with this

    • Adam says:

      More right wing think tank dribble? Seriously? Yes, there was no surplus under Clinton…if only you change the way we define a surplus. Problem solved. That’s like unemployment being 20%, not 10%…if you change the way we calculate unemployment. Problem solved again. Oh yes, and FDR made the depression worse…if you completely ignore reality to say so. Lots of problems solved by revisionist right wing lies. This is so easy…

  12. Big Dog says:

    You have yet to refute the Treasury numbers which show a higher debt when he left than when he went in. That is not revisionist, it is math. Show me how I am wrong. You can’t do it.

    Unemployment is much higher than reported because we are losing huge numbers of people from the job market so the denominator changes to a lower number. 600,000 left in December alone.

    Link

  13. Darrel says:

    Bigd, Adam roasted you and your article in his very first comment at the top and you never recovered or laid a glove on him after that.

    Your bit about Clinton and his surplus, pinched from a know nothing fellow who doesn’t know his bum from his calculator was roasted to a crisp, mid June.

    Let me know if you want it spanked again. Clinton had a surplus whether you move the goal posts and count S.S. or not.

    “…even if we remove Social Security from the equation, there was a surplus of $1.9 billion in fiscal 1999 and $86.4 billion in fiscal 2000. So any way you count it, the federal budget was balanced and the deficit was erased, if only for a while.” –Factcheck article below

    D.
    ——————
    “This chart, based on historical figures from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, shows the total deficit or surplus for each fiscal year from 1990 through 2006.”

    Factcheck.

    Follow the link, look at the numbers. Learn. Your source was a far rightwing clown, and he is wrong.

    Bonus:

    “Clinton bequeathed a federal budget that ran four consecutive years of surpluses totaling $560 billion. The projected 10-year surplus when he left office was $5.6 trillion (causing Fed chairman Alan Greenspan to express concern that the entire US debt may get paid off too rapidly…). Those surpluses were a result not only of painful tax increases but also of a decrease in the relative size of the federal government. Federal spending as a percentage of GDP fell from 22.1% in 1992 to 18.4% in 2000.

    And all this began without the support of a SINGLE Republican in Congress, as they predicted economic calamity would follow from the 1993 Budget Act.”

    • Darrel says:

      “historical figures” CBO link for above:

      http://cbo.gov/budget/historical.shtml

      • Big Dog says:

        Yes, look at the items in the CBO report. In the last 3 years Clinton was in office the ANNUAL budget had more revenue then what was spent. The last two years show a surplus and the debt decreased. This is not the absence of debt. Add in the off budget spending and the number is above that.

        It is evident that there was no surplus, that SS was used to pay the national debt (which is why it is in financial trouble) and that there was still debt. Look at the entire expendatures for the feds.

        The paper tricks are fun but this is a farce.

        But, if you want to persist in this idea then the Republicans in Congress deserve the credit. Congress writes the budget, congress appropriates the money and Congress decides on spending.

        Republicans were in control of Congress drom 1995-2005 so you can thank them ofor the so called surplus, balanced busget, and eradication of our debt…

        • Darrel says:

          Bigd: “In the last 3 years Clinton was in office the ANNUAL budget had more revenue then what was spent.”>>

          DAR
          Well, you’re counting your years wrong (as the article warns you against) but close enough. More revenue than money spent is a SURPLUS.

          Now will you quit lying about it?

          Bigd: “Republicans in Congress deserve the credit.”>>

          DAR
          Nope, Demos get all of that from their work in 1993. Not a single republican goose stepper had the testes to think for themselves and support the Demo budget. As my quote above noted:

          “And all this began without the support of a SINGLE Republican in Congress, as they predicted economic calamity would follow from the 1993 Budget Act.”

          Instead, surpluses and the greatest expansion in US history resulted from it.

          I wonder what would happen if we let conservatives run the show for a while. Oh, right, G.W. Bush and his Depression 2.0.

          D.

    • Big Dog says:

      Darrel, there was no roasting on anything. Use the figures from the Treasury. We were not at zero so there was no surplus.

      Any balanced budget and perceived surplus would have been on paper only and that is not a way to run anything. If your sat at your house and said OK, we have x dollars. If we only spend y on food and z on the rest of the bills and don’t go out to dinner we will have this much money left over. You could claim that your budget was balanced and that you had a surplus and thus no debt. But then if you looked at the bills you had an outstanding balance on the idea of no debt is gone. Then, if you spend more on food or go out to dinner you blew your “balanced” budget.

      The fact is we still had debt in this country.

      Let me be clear, we still owed money and the amount we owed was higher when he left than when he entered. That is a fact and easily discerned from the Treasury.

      Yes Republicans predicted economic calamity would ensue and it took a while but it is here.

  14. Big Dog says:

    Since at that point in time slaves were considered property and not men the Founders had no conflict with what they wrote. However, the Founders were very smart. They wanted to get rid of slavery so they made slaves only a portion of a person so that the south could not get more representatives than the north. This would allow for the eventual abolishment of slavery through the legislative process. Even though the war of northern aggression was not about slavery, it ended the practice. The war was not necessary for that because it would have ended in any event.

    We hold many things to be self evident.

  15. Big Dog says:

    The issue Darrel, is debt. And there was still debt. I know you like for the Dems to take credit but the numbers of which you speak were in the late 90s and that is when Republicans were in control.

    The stuff looks good on paper but it was not an actuality. The off budget items exceeded the revenue.

  16. Big Dog says:

    See Adam, what public education gets for you. I never compared Nazi Germany to the current situation. I said that people failed to see that government get out of control before it was too late. This government can get out of control and not be as bad as the Nazis. You need to pay attention.

    You assume the people who do the job the feds refuse to are white supremists.

    No one i sginning anything up.

    And no one is overeacting to losing an election. As I recall from you and the other morons dissent is the highest form of patriotism. You see, for 8 years you were actually delusional. Now that you have what you want any one who oppses it is some kind of racist or drama queen. You have a double standard that way.

    We can oppose the democratically elected majority (as you did before Hussein) and still be patriots.

    You really should learn what you are talking about.

  17. Big Dog says:

    There was no balanced budget. The government simply moved public debt to government debt and used Social Security receipts to cover the gap. SS is not for that and the budget was not balanced. Sleight of hand.

    Since debt increased each year there is no way that there was a surplus. It just matters where you put the debt and then what you report.

    Clinton had a deficit EVERY year so there could not be a surplus. From 93-01 the debt goes UP every year. Therefore we incurred more debt each year so there could not be a balanced budget. If you use only the numbers you did then one can show a “surplus” but when you look at thge entire picture it is different indeed.

    If I want to buy a home and the mortgage company says that I have 10k in debt and that I can’t get the home with the debt so I borrow 10k from my dad and pay off the debt. Then I go to the mortgage company and tell them I paid off the 10k and am debt free. The do a check and indeed I am “debt” free. I borrow the money and buy th ehome because I have “no” debt. The reality is, I still owe 10k but it is hidden from view.

    That is how the government accounting works.

    Believe what you want but ALL of the numbers do not lie.

    More on this

  18. Big Dog says:

    What did tofu do to me? It sustains morons rather than allowing them to die off under natural selection.

  19. Big Dog says:

    I like my steak to have meat in it. If it has no meat it is not a steak.