rdmcandie wrote:
Quote:
Most of those 8 million you count as the cost of the sub prime mortgage crisis I count as being the fault of the massive stimulus spending the Dems embarked on.
You have a cite to support this too right. Or calculations, since apparently we are now dividing total employment into section.
sure If we look at the total rise in unemployment between when the subprime mortgage crisis hit (mid 2008) and the peak (late 2009), about 50% of that increase occurred *after* the announcement of the recovery act. If we back that up to the point where the Dems won the white house and sufficient majorities in both houses to be able to pass all the crazy spending they'd been talking about, then it's more like 60%.
Or do you not think that nearly every company in the US implementing hiring freezes right about that time had something to do with the increase in unemployment from that point on. It's not just about jobs lost. We lose jobs all the time even when there isn't some economic problem going on. Unemployment goes up the most when people don't create new jobs. And that's what we stopped doing during that time period.
Quote:
How much exactly was attributed to the Investment Crisis, and how much to ARRA?
Good question! Do you have an answer? Hell. Let's not even try for "exactly", but try to just get a good estimate. At the risk of repeating myself, it's not like job losses directly attributed to the mortgage meltdown were that great. It was all the businesses not creating new jobs that made unemployment go up. And while some of that certainly was initially because of the lack of credit in the financial market, once TARP was passed and that logjam was broken, the job effect from the initial crisis should have stopped. We should not have hit even 8% unemployment.
But we hit that, and we kept on going to just over 10%. So why, if there was money to borrow, and money to lend, did businesses not resume their normal rate of job creation? Some other factor had to have occurred, and it's hard to not look at the economic policies the Dems promised to pass as a likely culprit.
Quote:
In the same vein your source doesn't differentiate, it claims ARRA created 2 million jobs, what not to say that by august the private sector didn't lose a further 2 million jobs, netting in 0 job growth.
Huh? It said that net job creation by Aug 2010 from ARRA was zero. Not that it created X jobs but other jobs were lost elsewhere, but that by August of 2010, the money for creating jobs had been spent, and the temporary jobs ARRA created had disappeared. I've explained this to you like three times now. I didn't think it was that complicated.
Quote:
But lest I lead you off course further with logic, exactly how many jobs do you attribute to ARRA losing. Cites, and supporting documentation please.
I don't know "exactly". Also, I'm not talking just about ARRA. I'm talking about all of the stimulus stuff (and the health care bill) passed by the Dems in 2009. And in the same way that it's nearly impossible to say how many jobs were "created or saved" by ARRA, it's nearly impossible to say how many jobs were lost because of the runaway spending and economic policies of the Dems during that period of time.
What we can say is that jobs were not created at the rate they usually are during that time, and there's no reason to associate that drop to the initial crisis once TARP was passed. And yes, I'm aware that unemployment is a lagging indicator, but it's also affected most by forward looking assessments by job creators. The jobs created today are based on how those businesses think things will be over the next 5-10 years. If you think that the profitability of expanding your business in the US will be lessened over the next few years, you're going to do less expanding in the US. And that will mean you'll create fewer jobs.
IMO, that factor far outweighed what little job creation effects the Dems stimulus spending had.