unions killing jobs...

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Riot

I'm sorry, you are just quoting words, without any apparent understanding of the meaning.

Look at the CBO report released this week. Is that CBO prediction for SS better, worse or the same as what was predicted last year?

ok, i'll bite...i have not seen hte new report, and i can't open it on my phone.
are these wonderful new and improved numbers based on the spending default deal they passed along with the debt ceiling increase? i am figuring it is, because it is the only new funding change that is going to happen unless the supercommittee comes up with other ideas.
and if it is, how do you feel about those numbers if it is based on a deal you derided?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

ok, i'll bite...i have not seen hte new report, and i can't open it on my phone.
are these wonderful new and improved numbers based on the spending default deal they passed along with the debt ceiling increase? i am figuring it is, because it is the only new funding change that is going to happen unless the supercommittee comes up with other ideas.
and if it is, how do you feel about those numbers if it is based on a deal you derided?

No. It is just the usually regular readjustment prediction of the health of the Social Security funds, based upon most recent information. Just the regular, usual calculation on it's health and longevity.

[Danzig]

i will have to read that when i get home in ten days.

[Cannon Shell]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...p_mostpop_read

[Danzig]

i read that article yesterday evening when i got to the hotel....thought it was interesting.

[Riot]

That was an interesting opinion article in the WSJ.

But so are these, compiled this week (and being completely ignored by right-wing media, including the Rupert-Murdoch-owned editorial board of the WSJ)

"The Stimulus worked"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...bibJ_blog.html

Study: ”Did the Stimulus Stimulate? Real Time Estimates of the Effects of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.” James Feyrer and Bruce Sacerdote, Dartmouth College.

What it says: The stimulus had a positive, statistically significant effect on employment. The effects varied by type of spending. Aid to states for education and law enforcement didn’t have a significant effect, but aid to low-income people and infrastructure spending showed very positive impacts. The multiplier was between 1.96 to 2.31 for low-income spending, 1.85 for infrastructure

Study: “Does State Fiscal Relief During Recessions Increase Employment? Evidence from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.” Gabriel Chodorow-Reich (Berkeley), Laura Feiveson (MIT), Zachary Liscow (Berkeley), and William Gui Woolston (Stanford).

What it says: The state fiscal aid portion of the stimulus, which specifically increased federal Medicaid matching funds, had significant positive effects on employment. The additional matching funds increased employment by 3.5 job-years per $100,000 spent, and the multiplier for the funds is around 2.

Study: ”Fiscal Spending Jobs Multipliers: Evidence from the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.” Daniel J. Wilson of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco.

The stimulus created 2 million jobs in its first year, and 3.2 million by March 2011. .... Private sector, state and local government and construction sectors all showed consistently significant positive effects, whereas whether the effect on manufacturing, education and health was positive depends on whether one looks at announcements, obligations or payments.

More detail, original study links, more studies (including two that say effects were marginal) and analysis at website above.