CBO: Up To 2.1 Million Jobs Created Thanks To Stimulus
Tweet
Democrats saved the economy from the Bush recession
The massive stimulus package passed last year to blunt the impact of the worst U.S. recession in 70 years created up to 2.1 million jobs in the last three months of 2009, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office said on Tuesday.
The package boosted the economy by up to 3.5 percent and lowered the unemployment rate by up to 2.1 percent during that period, CBO said.
81 Responses to “CBO: Up To 2.1 Million Jobs Created Thanks To Stimulus”
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
What Time Is Super Bowl 2012 (Super Bowl XLVI)?
Republican Senate Candidate To Run Racist Ad During Super Bowl
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
“The government has never created a job. Tune into tomorrow’s show when I lock children in a cage to show how public school students are prisoners”-John Stossel
SaveFarris: The unemployment rate is higher! The CBO must be either lying or stupid.
Dennis: Did you see that congressman… woman… no, wait, man… didn’t you guys see him LAUGH at the notion of reciting the pledge of allegiance? Outrageous!
Frank: I’m guessing that all these jobs were for liberals in government positions and for abortion doctors. And they don’t count. And I base this on absolutely nothing. Also, I’m so persecuted on this board… waaaaah!
Amused Observer: LOL. I’m quite sure that all these jobs went to black people, so I still oppose the stimulus. Black people are not as intelligent as white people, and therefore don’t deserve these jobs. White people do! When will you libtards realize that your policies are unpopular and that socialism will never win, that real Americans will rise up and take their country back from you communists and your Kenyan leader, Barack Hussein Obama?
There. You guys don’t need to post anything now.
Allright, mambo!
We can all go for a frappacino.
ROFL
Mambo, you left out an alternative: self-serving.
Right, because if we (the CBO) admitted we were poor judges of economic predicators, noone would ever listen to us ever again. So, it’s all the underlying data’s fault!!!!!
SaveFarris, thanks for the first on-topic post of this thread.
See? Dennis does too get irony!
On topic but totally nonsensical and wildly off the mark. Par for the course for Save.
Save, the CBO is, in fact, saying that they did not correctly estimate how weak the economy was when they first assessed the stimulus package.
What they got right, or close to it, was the impact of the stimulus on the economy. From the article:
Whose prediction is being referenced in that second sentence? The CBOs. And who is being paraphrased here? The CBO.
In other words, the CBO is admitting that they judged the initial economic indicators poorly but that they estimated the impact of the stimulus accurately.
Not only are you wrong, your interpretation of the CBO quote in the article doesn’t make any sense at all. None whatsoever.
I will join Dennis in congratulating you for being on topic. I can’t, however, share in his tacit endorsement of your stupidity.
Right, because if we (the CBO) admitted we were poor judges of economic predicators, noone would ever listen to us ever again. So, it’s all the underlying data’s fault!!!!!
That wouldn’t actually be a third option, though, would it? That’s just a variation on “They’re saying something that does not validate my biases, so they must be lying!”
Right, because if we (the CBO) admitted we were poor judges of economic predicators, noone would ever listen to us ever again. So, it’s all the underlying data’s fault!!!!!
Longer SaveFarris: If economists (and climate scientists for that matter) can’t predict the future with absolute exactitude, everything they say is crap!!! (Unless they agree with me, of course, in which case I will link them).
Or rather, I will try to link them and end up linking something that doesn’t agree with me at all.
SaveFarris, thanks for the first on-topic post of this thread.
Dennis, you misunderstand. Humorous quips = good, unfunny irrelevance = bad.
Besides unless one of these guys repeats the same quip thirty times in the same thread, your crown for annoying irrelevance is safe.
Anybody notice that mambo pegged Farris’ response in 1?
I did! I did! AND I even noticed when Farris tried to pretend he wasn’t making exactly the complaint mambo predicted!
I had my caffiene today.
I would have sworn it was the actual responses from the wingnuts. Way to go Mambo!
Almost perfect. But you forgot SaveFarris’s obligatory misleading link that allegedly supports his argument.
Even it’s true, the math comes to $374761.91 per job. Typical Democratic economic solution. I wonder how many of the 2.1 million souls got $37,000 dollars ?
Frank, were you aware that not all the money was spent right away?
As someone smack dab in the middle of application for, and reciept of ARRA funding, I can tell you without hesitation that 1.) It’s creating jobs, and, 2.) Recieving ARRA funds isn’t “automatic” in my business…it’s *incredibly* competitive (at least on the R&D end). One of my “customers” was only 1 of 34 to recieve ARRA funds, despite over 1,400 applications.
Some institutions have in fact, added staff at their own expense simply to respond to the increased volume of activity due to ARRA.
Putting aside how it impacts me in the workplace, a highway I have long driven, overdue for a rehaul , and in fact getting dangerous, was resurfaced, via ARRA.
If I had my way, most of the ARRA money would have gone to “infrastructure,” aka Roosevelt. But I understand the nature of politics now–it would never fly in a nation of 300 Milllion “special interests.”
Most of the money hasn’t been spent yet, actually.
Which in a way is good, but it would have been better to get it out there ASAP. People need jobs now, not tomorrow.
Hehe!
It’s such an important note as Dennis entered this thread with a McCarthyite non-sequitor and then disappeared completely humiliated.
http://www.oliverwillis.com/2010/02/22/who-are-the-oath-keepers/#comments
Not only that but it’s not as if we’re getting nothing but jobs in exchange for the money. Some of the money is probably going in to materials to build things that also have value.
Timely, topical, fact-based evidence proving that the stimulus is having an effect.
The teabagger trolls here are going to love you.
Sure thing – spin, spin, spin…
If the left can imagine $640 toilet seats when it’s time to decry Defense spending, I can do my own math.
Here’s more math : $787 B divided by 300 M equals $2623.33 for every man, woman and child in the United States. Think of what that would have done for the economy ! Wowzer!
Go read Bastiat’s story of the glazier: You cannot spend your way out of an economic crisis.
“You cannot spend your way out of an economic crisis.”
The 1930′s disagree with you.
Me too! ROFLMAO
“You cannot spend your way out of an economic crisis.”
You certainly can’t laissez faire your way out either. Didn’t work the first time around; got us into this shit hole mess to begin with. Look around.
Cryptic, pithy, and incorrect.
So how did the Great Depression end? Federal spnding via The New Deal or even greater Federal spending via WWII?
So how did the Great Depression end?
I’ll tell you how. This one-man stimulus package started making movies in 1937. Few years later, bam! No more depression.
Eh, it makes as much sense as anything Frank will come back with.
Funny you mention Reagan. His personal political hero was FDR.
Yes Virginia, there was a time when Republicans weren’t insane parodies of themselves.
Go read Bastiat’s story of the glazier…
Thankfully, the people in charge right now realize that the modern economy is more complicated than nineteenth century fables.
Awesome
Canadian bacon: The USA has not had a laissez faire economy since at least 1916, certainly not since 1935.
Jaim, I see you remember your 10th Grade American History : How FDR Saved America’s Economy By Getting Us Into World War II. Sorry, but no — but you do get our home game: “How to solve a Depression by employing millions of men at soldiers’ wages, while many of their wives work in the non-consumer economy (defense jobs)”. Using your logic (watch how this works, Wilbur* ) we should start a four year war on two fronts involving 30 million men. In fact, if we stayed at war all the time, our economy should be just super duper, right? Somehow, I hear the name “George Orwell” in the back of my mind — or is that a 20th Century fable we should ignore,eh, Wilbur?
And speaking of Reagan, one of his more famous sayings is perfectly appropriate in this context: It wasn’t that liberals don’t know anything, it’s that they know so many things that just aren’t so.
* The story of the glazier will never go out of style, as long there are Keynesian economists and their theorists in the Democratic Party, who believe that “breaking windows” will stimulate the economy.
Like Obama’s overselling of the bill, hyperbole like it “saved the economy” is exactly why so many conservatives are easily convinced that it has done no good at all. It isn’t hard to turn around and say to them, “10%+ unemployment and massive deficits are what Oliver Willis considers a saved economy!”
I find it plausible that some overselling (the extent is up for debate) may have been necessary to get the bill passed, but you don’t need to oversell the effects now, and in fact, I believe you are just providing fodder to the critics.
“Using your logic (watch how this works, Wilbur* ) we should start a four year war on two fronts involving 30 million men.”
Actually, spending the money on domestic infrastructure would be a better value. WWII had to be fought, and despite the suffering there were long-term economic gains to be had. In fact, it helped make the US the most powerful country on the planet. And the GI bill certainly helped to make ex-soldiers into white collar employees who make more and therefore pay more in taxes. Econ 101.
I’ve taught 10th grade US history, btw. Have you?
But please, continue to tell us how Federal spending has never created any jobs.
How’d the Soviet Union go from a peasant economy to world superpower, despite all the “broken windows”?
Like Obama’s overselling of the bill, hyperbole like it “saved the economy” is exactly why so many conservatives are easily convinced that it has done no good at all. It isn’t hard to turn around and say to them, “10%+ unemployment and massive deficits are what Oliver Willis considers a saved economy!”
Considering the damage that conservatives did and would have done, I’d consider it “saved”.
* The story of the glazier will never go out of style, as long there are Keynesian economists and their theorists in the Democratic Party, who believe that “breaking windows” will stimulate the economy.
Riddle me this, Frank, what figurative windows have been broken by the stimulus that it’s paying to repair?
I have a better idea , Jaim, why don’t you explain how spending (particularly deficit spending) “creates” jobs ?
As a follow up question, please explain how the inevitable inflation does not damage the economy.
I taught 7th and 8th grade American history, where we discovered how “Big Government” and “special interest politics” began; I also taught 9th and 10th grade college prep Global studies.
BTW, I taught that to Americans; did you?
Zython, all these so-called “shovel ready” infrastructure projects were either necessary or they were not. If they were necessary, then the State or local government should pay for them. If they were not necessary, then the Federal government has, in effect, “broken a window”, kind of like sending a gardener to my apartment, and paying him to do absolutely nothing, when he should either be gardening or unemployed.
I taught 7th and 8th grade American history, where we discovered how “Big Government” and “special interest politics” began; I also taught 9th and 10th grade college prep Global studies.
Oh, those poor, poor kids. Maybe they were old enough to know that you were full of shit, though. Hopefully.
all these so-called “shovel ready” infrastructure projects were either necessary or they were not.
Frank’s a member of the Tautology Club!
Actually, it’s obvious, but it’s not a tautology. “Hopefully” is used incorrectly — read a book.
And I am no longer taking the bait, mambo. You’re just a dope with a big mouth.
Frank, you’re not smart.
Tautology: 1) Needless repetition of an idea; an instance of such repetition. 2) Logic; a compound propositional form all of whose instances are true, as “A or not A.”
Hopefully: 1) In a hopeful manner. 2) It is hoped.
Emphasis added. Hat tip to dictionary.com.
Now maybe you can see what I meant when I said that I didn’t like the idea of you teaching schoolchildren. You don’t even have a handle on basic English, the notion that you should teach kids is just nauseating.
How about YOU read a book, dummy?
Mambo, you illiterate delinquent ! What idea did I repeat? I said it was either necessary or not. I then wrote two sentences containing conditional clauses. The usage is perfectly acceptable, and in no way tautological. This is certainly not the first time you were wrong, but it is absolutely, incontrovertibly true that this time you, I and everyone else know it.
Secondly, hopefully is an adverb, which is used to describe a verb, an adjective, or another adverb. You did not do that.
You should have said, “I hope.”
I went to school when they taught grammar, bub. You are way, way out of your league.
Using your logic (watch how this works, Wilbur* ) we should start a four year war on two fronts involving 30 million men. In fact, if we stayed at war all the time, our economy should be just super duper, right? Somehow, I hear the name “George Orwell” in the back of my mind — or is that a 20th Century fable we should ignore,eh, Wilbur?
No, we should avoid simpleton extremes in both directions. I realize that is hard for simpletons to do, but we must try.
Using your logic, Frank, we should let all the glaziers and their babies starve while shopkeepers horde a bunch of excess capital in Cayman banks and cover their broken windows with cardboard.
Zython, all these so-called “shovel ready” infrastructure projects were either necessary or they were not. If they were necessary, then the State or local government should pay for them.
They are paying for them. That’s the goddamn point.
mambo, to help put this in perspective, Frank has stated to have about 12 completely different jobs throughout his life. Whether or not he’s lying, neither one paints a decent picture of him.
Mambo, you illiterate delinquent !
That’s pretty rich, coming from someone who apparently can’t read the second definition of a word. Even one that had been bolded for emphasis.
Also, there shouldn’t be a space between “delinquent” and the exclamation mark.
See, we can both play this stupid little game!
The usage is perfectly acceptable, and in no way tautological.
Wrong. Read the second definition.
This is certainly not the first time you were wrong, but it is absolutely, incontrovertibly true that this time you, I and everyone else know it.
For someone who was taught grammar, you certainly don’t seem to remember much of it.
You should have said, “I hope.”
If you want to pick nits, then I think you can argue that it was a fragment. However, the term as I used it was not misused. Again, read the second fucking definition of the word.
You are way, way out of your league.
Is this what you’ve come to, Frank? You can’t win on any topic of substance, so you resort to trying to pick apart my grammar and language skills? And even then, you STILL fail miserably? You’re pathetic.
Frank’s statement was technically a tautology but it was used defensibly in the context. More to the point, though, it was a false dichotomy. Between ‘necessary’ and ‘unnecessary’ there is a whole world of ‘not immediately necessary but potentially beneficial’.
Mambochicken did not use “hopefully” incorrectly. “hopefully” is one of a large class of words that can function as “disjuncts” or “sentence adverbs”. Thankfully most English teachers these days would doubtlessly agree.
Thanks for the clarifications, Wilbur. I agree, in context, that Frank’s tautology was fine – it just gave me an excuse to promote the Tautology Club.
Really, those are the only two options? What about necessary but unaffordable?
Oliver, it’s time to follow through on your latest comment behavior diktat. That, or time to stop making them.
Buzz, the conversation on this thread happened pretty organically. I think that Oliver was referring more to situations where one person, out of nowhere, would post a link that had nothing to do with the topic on the thread. OW is really good about allowing conversation to progress naturally without censorship, but for him to post a thread about global warming denialism and for a certain, unnamed person to immediately post a link that details Obama’s poor approval ratings – well, that’s just ridiculous.
I’m gonna side with mambochicken23 on this one.
But credit where it’s due: “diktat” is funny. Nicely played.
I think Oliver should manage the comment threads exactly as he wants and issue whatever diktats he wants and the rest of you all should stfu or get lost.
That is, stfu about how Oliver manages his own f’n blog.
“The USA has not had a laissez faire economy since at least 1916″
STFU, Frank.
The Panic of 1819… of 1837… of 1857… of 1873… of 1893… of 1907…
What is the Austrian School’s take on these events, Frank?
That certain unnamed person never did that, mambo-liar23. That certain person usually posts a link in response to some prior idiotic post, then clowns like you take exception, call that certain person juvenile names, and then proceed to play twenty questions about that post. And that post that you cry like a baby for being so off-topic in your view, it’s still worth another 30 posts or so from the left side of the commentariat who, like you, just think it’s vitally important to speak truth to power about that Off-topic post.
After you’ve done all that you whine to the blog owner that that certain person hijacked the thread. And like you just did here with Frank, you think you’re exempt from the blog owner’s warning and think you’re not at all just as annoying as that certain person, if not far more.
That certain unnamed person never did that, mambo-liar23
Oh, right. You’re always on-topic, and you NEVER engage in stupid mud-slinging from a random perspective that has nothing to do with the topic of the post, or anything else in the comments…. totally right, Dennis, I am a huge liar.
Or maybe not.
Care to explain what that bullshit link from Breitbart has to do with Republican hypocrisy on the stimulus package?
…Schmidt?
You’re an idiot, Dennis. And a liar. And a generally unpleasant asshole.
And I don’t think I am exempt from OW’s warning. I was just saying that my commentary follows the actual topic of his blog post and/or directly follows other individuals’ commentary. I don’t hijack threads and post bullshit that is irrelevant with respect to either the post topic or others’ comments.
An organic progression of the discussion of a post seems fine to me, and I’m guessing that OW shares my view on that.
However, what is stupid and annoying is when jackasses like you think they can post anything they want, unprovoked, untopical, and that it either A) should be ignored, or B) is completely fine and okay and it doesn’t matter what the real topic of the post is so long as I get my right-wing bullshit out there.
You’re a hack and a jackass.
Ten bucks says that the delay in Dennis’ reply to my comments is because he’s feverishly looking for an instance of me hijacking a thread in the exact same manner as he repeatedly does. And then, if he trolls through long enough and finds one, he will come back here and shout that I am a hypocrite. Except the link he provides will be from years ago and won’t support his case.
Happy hunting, Dennis.
Yes you did, Dennis. Yes you did.
Creeeepy lurker dude.
See, mamboliar, when I go away because I’m busy you pound your chest and think you just won the argument. You announce it, even. When we’re not here, you crave us. If the other conservatives and I left here, you would too. We’re why you even show up. But on the other hand, if I engage with you and your inanity, then fafaroo and Quibs and all the usuals jump in and it becomes a slingfest….. with everyone blaming me for hijacking the thread. No big revelation, it’s just amusing to me how you think you’re Snow White and how cool it is that you think you get away with it without anyone else knowing your game.
But to your post and the link you supplied, on that thread there were 99 posts total. Yours comprised 26 of them, so over 25%. Of those 26 posts of yours, 7 were on-topic or vaguely on-topic. 19 posts were completely off-topic. So you went 7 and 19 on that thread. Above the Mendoza line, but for someone who complains about off-topic posts as much as you do, a complete joke of a hypocrite are you.
And my post on that thread you think you got me on for being so god-awful off-topic, letting you know about Obama’s socialist/marxist beliefs and when he was in college and his philosophy on wealth redistribution both then and now, has everything in the world to do with the stimulus package and why the Republicans were opposed with so many things in it. It was very much on-topic. Or at the very least, way-the-fuck more on topic than 19 of your posts on that thread. Douche.
Of course Frank would NEVER decry liberal indoctrination in the classroom because he conducted his own form of indoctrination in his.
I hear violin music!
Stimulus? Jobs?
call that certain person juvenile names – Dennis
clowns like you – Dennis
cry like a baby – Dennis
mamboliar – Dennis
Douche – Dennis
You’re taking all this far too seriously. Now get Frank’s lame fool ass in here to answer my questions.
Knew you’d say that, Quaker, but no, to the contrary, keep bringin’ it. It’s just amusing how mambo-liar23 acts like a little kid who got caught pulling the cat’s tail and he gives the excuse that another kid did it worse and what he did wasn’t near as bad.
Quaker, you’re 0-6 on this thread, dude.
Should at least try to get off the schneid first before you do your usual cat-calls.
At least then your hypocrisy won’t have to seem so transparent.
See, mamboliar, when I go away because I’m busy you pound your chest and think you just won the argument. You announce it, even. When we’re not here, you crave us. If the other conservatives and I left here, you would too. We’re why you even show up.
There may be a grain of truth in that. However, I’m a guy that enjoyed playing NHL ’95 on Sega Genesis and beating the computer, repeatedly, by 20 goals or more. My interactions with you are about in line with that.
But on the other hand, if I engage with you and your inanity, then fafaroo and Quibs and all the usuals jump in and it becomes a slingfest….. with everyone blaming me for hijacking the thread. No big revelation, it’s just amusing to me how you think you’re Snow White and how cool it is that you think you get away with it without anyone else knowing your game.
Everyone blames you for hijacking the thread because you are the one initiating the off-topic bullshit. It’s not the fact that you engage with me or others AFTER the fact – it’s that you post off-topic stuff initially, half-wit.
But to your post and the link you supplied, on that thread there were 99 posts total. Yours comprised 26 of them, so over 25%. Of those 26 posts of yours, 7 were on-topic or vaguely on-topic. 19 posts were completely off-topic. So you went 7 and 19 on that thread. Above the Mendoza line, but for someone who complains about off-topic posts as much as you do, a complete joke of a hypocrite are you.
Oh, I see. Instead of rooting through the archives, you were busy totaling up my on-topic and off-topic comments. Here’s an important question: How many of those “off-topic” posts were responses to other commenters (e.g., you) and their bullshit tangential points? For the billionth time, it’s not “off-topic” conversation that is the problem – no, instead that is the symptom. A symptom of you posting nonsense links that have NOTHING to do with the topic at hand.
And my post on that thread you think you got me on for being so god-awful off-topic, letting you know about Obama’s socialist/marxist beliefs and when he was in college and his philosophy on wealth redistribution both then and now, has everything in the world to do with the stimulus package and why the Republicans were opposed with so many things in it. It was very much on-topic.
Baaaaahahahaha! I cannot believe that you are serious here. OK, let me get this straight…
OW’s post: “The Republicans are hypocritical because they derided the stimulus package and then requested funds from it, after it was passed. On a further note, they requested funds on a basis (i.e., for job creation) that they specifically criticized the stimulus package on prior to its passage. They are hypocrites.”
You: “An old college acquaintance of Obama’s reports that he hated America, that Obama saw the U.S. as being the enemy!”
That’s being on-topic? Are you out of your fucking mind?!
Further, you assert that it is on-topic because it explains why Republicans were opposed to the stimulus package. Let’s see… the stimulus package was… yep, early summer 2009. And this “revelation”, via Breitbart, was… what, less than two weeks ago? Are you meaning to tell me that the Republicans voted against the stimulus package in summer 2009 because of Obama’s old acquaintance came forward months later and said that Obama was a “pure Marxist socialist” who hated America in 1980? Is that about right?
You’re a fucking tool, Dennis. A hack, a loser, and a dishonest clown.
Jobs? Stimulus?
Yeah, but he’s a wealthy god fearing conservative patriotic corporate successful teabagging macho macho family man. Who’s white. Who defends Sarah Palin’s honor. And who’s fucking persistent. That’s gotta count for something.
You first, Quibs.
Think of something clever this time.
mambochicken23: Ignore the troll. Just a thought.
Well, gee, mambo-liar23, my post then was just “an organic progression of the discussion ….., and I’m guessing that OW shares my view on that.”
Doosh.
Indeed, I applaud your long lay-off again. Unlike some here, you recognized your obsessive tendencies here were causing you great mental stress. Well done, and try not to let your falling a bit off the wagon allow you to regress back into your old ways.
I’m just wondering why you didn’t change names again, or at least go back to being plain old ‘ed’ again. I think it’d be kind of cool to have Wilbur and Mr. ed on this blog at the same time.
Anyway, just some food for thought.
Very well. Have it your way.
IHS/Global Insight. Moody’s. Now the CBO. All agree the stimulus bill had a strong positive effect. I wonder if anyone knows of any “reputable economists” who could provide a contrary opinion.
Guess not.
Why do you have to make a personal attack out of this, Zython?
What is wrong with you? I am 63 years old. I have worked since I was 16. Is it hard to believe that I had 12 jobs, or even 22 jobs? I never said I had 12 careers of several years duration. I have done a lot of things in my life. If you don’t believe me, that’s too fucking bad. But calling me a liar, or suggesting I might be one, is unnecessary, and certainly contributes absolutely nothing to this thread but rancor and spite.
And what does “neither one paints a decent picture of him” mean ?
Are you saying that if I am lying about having many different jobs, I am not a decent person , and that if I am not lying about having many different jobs, I am still not a decent person?
What is the matter with you, Zython?
What is wrong with you?
LOL,
Mambo’s either off his meds or on some new ones. The majority of the “jobs created” went to maintaining teachers and other education workers, propping up failing state budgets.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/31/us/31stimulus.html?_r=1
I see Jaim has an in depth knowledge of the depression, it’s causes, and eventual cures. The short version, FDR and the New Deal. Too bad he has cause and cure confused.
I will admit, I went too far there, and for that, I apologize.
I am happy to see you man up . Your apology is accepted.