PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues Obama's Porkulus: Job Creation Officially A Failure


patteeu
06-08-2009, 06:23 AM
According to Obama's own grading scale, his bankruptingly expensive stimulus (aka porkulus) bill has been a complete failure at creating new jobs. In fact, it appears to have destroyed jobs just as it destroyed our country's balance sheet.

Here's the Innocent Bystanders (http://michaelscomments.wordpress.com/2009/06/05/the-may-unemployment-numbers-are-here-and-worse-than-predicted/) and John Hinderaker of Powerline (http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/06/023741.php) to tell you about it:

It's not too often that one can declare, on the basis of a single graphic image, that a particular piece of legislation has been a failure, but I think this is such a case.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/assets_c/2009/06/stimulus-vs-unemployment-may2-thumb-410x250.gif

mlyonsd
06-08-2009, 07:15 AM
It takes months for several hundred billion dollars to be doled out for temporary jobs.

patteeu
06-08-2009, 07:50 AM
It takes months for several hundred billion dollars to be doled out for temporary jobs.

LOL

Whatever the excuse that Obama's facebook friends offer for this, nothing can change the fact that Obama's own team said that the employment situation would be considerably better without porkulus than it's turned out being with porkulus.

http://failblog.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/fail-owned-out-of-business-hiring-employment-fail.jpg

HonestChieffan
06-08-2009, 07:54 AM
Hard to hire that many people for bureacrat level makework jobs just for the summer. Give the administration a break here. Plus Obo says they saved over a billion jobs that would have been lost. So statistically, everyone is fine.

Chief Henry
06-08-2009, 08:06 AM
How many jobs has Obama created ? Let me clearify that, how many NON govermental
jobs has Obama created ?

patteeu
06-08-2009, 08:06 AM
Hard to hire that many people for bureacrat level makework jobs just for the summer. Give the administration a break here. Plus Obo says they saved over a billion jobs that would have been lost. So statistically, everyone is fine.

Were they lying when they said they'd keep unemployment under 8% as long as we went on an insane spending spree that makes past government fiscal irresponsibility look like penny-pinching?

HonestChieffan
06-08-2009, 08:20 AM
Were they lying when they said they'd keep unemployment under 8% as long as we went on an insane spending spree that makes past government fiscal irresponsibility look like penny-pinching?

No, that was not a lie. That was a projection and the underlying data may have shifted creating a gap in the numbers. The lag time in the new data causes a shortfall in the numbers that will be reflected in upcoming numbers from future surveys.

You gotta spend some time on your spin-craft.

***SPRAYER
06-08-2009, 08:44 AM
Yahoo's front page is doing damage control right now.

LMAO

***SPRAYER
06-08-2009, 08:45 AM
LOL

Whatever the excuse that Obama's facebook friends


:LOL:

wild1
06-08-2009, 08:53 AM
Why do you think they created this "jobs saved" non-statistic?

HonestChieffan
06-08-2009, 08:56 AM
Where did you faith in fellow man go?

***SPRAYER
06-08-2009, 08:58 AM
Why do you think they created this "jobs saved" non-statistic?

Excellent point.

This gets funnier and funnier. LMAO

dirk digler
06-08-2009, 09:37 AM
To be fair several states have been holding out on receiving funds and one Republican got over-turned last week so they will be soon receiving funds.

Also according to the official site only 43 Billion has been paid out of the 135 billion accessible.

http://www.recovery.gov/?q=content/report-progress

BucEyedPea
06-08-2009, 09:40 AM
To be fair several states have been holding out on receiving funds and one Republican got over-turned last week so they will be soon receiving funds.

Also according to the official site only 43 Billion has been paid out of the 135 billion accessible.

http://www.recovery.gov/?q=content/report-progress

Why would the magic only occur at 135 billion when there was no improvement at 43 billion? I mean shouldn't there be some trend starting?

mlyonsd
06-08-2009, 09:46 AM
Why would the magic only occur at 135 billion when there was no improvement at 43 billion? I mean shouldn't there be some trend starting?

No, no, you've got this backwards. Imagine the magic they would be able to do with say 900 billion. I can't wait to see what they cook up for the 2010 budget.

I'd also like to know out of all these 'jobs' that are going to be created this summer how many of them are long term employment and not just stop gap short term. I mean when you build roads, bridges, and do park improvement the work eventually ends.

dirk digler
06-08-2009, 09:48 AM
Why would the magic only occur at 135 billion when there was no improvement at 43 billion? I mean shouldn't there be some trend starting?

That is a fair question but I think we should wait awhile until all the states finally start getting the money and see how it turns out. This was never going to be a 6 month fix.

HonestChieffan
06-08-2009, 09:51 AM
To be fair several states have been holding out on receiving funds and one Republican got over-turned last week so they will be soon receiving funds.

Also according to the official site only 43 Billion has been paid out of the 135 billion accessible.

http://www.recovery.gov/?q=content/report-progress

$43,000,000,000

I'd expect something for that many. I think I have the right zeros.

I never thought Id live to see rational sane people say "only" and "$43,000,000,000" and not gag.

petegz28
06-08-2009, 09:53 AM
Obama is promising 600,000 "stimulus" jobs to be created over the summer.


LMAO...this guy has ruined this country inside of 4 months on the job

BucEyedPea
06-08-2009, 09:57 AM
That is a fair question but I think we should wait awhile until all the states finally start getting the money and see how it turns out. This was never going to be a 6 month fix.

Without govt doing anything ( except humanitarian like food and shelter) this is a one to 2 year fix on its own. With massive govt spending it's at least a decade.

HonestChieffan
06-08-2009, 10:10 AM
Why....

If I spend and you spend and business spends and it is refered to as trickle down and held in contempt by the Left...

Why if Obonomics spends the same amount it is seen as manna from heaven?

shitgoose
06-08-2009, 10:10 AM
Don't ever question God

<object width="425" height="344"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/pbvXH05dot0&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Chief Faithful
06-08-2009, 11:12 AM
That is a fair question but I think we should wait awhile until all the states finally start getting the money and see how it turns out. This was never going to be a 6 month fix.

That is what Obama was preaching as he signed the Porkulus although he also said we would be seeing improvement by now not a continuing spiral. Biden also asked us not to turn on them when terrorists hit the US again.

Is their any other failure they want us to know about in advance?

HonestChieffan
06-08-2009, 11:14 AM
That is what Obama was preaching as he signed the Porkulus although he also said we would be seeing improvement by now not a continuing spiral. Biden also asked us not to turn on them when terrorists hit the US again.

Is their any other failure they want us to know about in advance?

Rumor has it the dog pisses on all the White House Carpets. They better get on that one.

***SPRAYER
06-08-2009, 11:17 AM
Don't ever question God

<object width="425" height="344"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/pbvXH05dot0&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

You mean I could have been SHITSPRAYER instead of SHTSPRAYER?

I feel so cheated.

Shaid
06-08-2009, 11:27 AM
No, no, you've got this backwards. Imagine the magic they would be able to do with say 900 billion. I can't wait to see what they cook up for the 2010 budget.

I'd also like to know out of all these 'jobs' that are going to be created this summer how many of them are long term employment and not just stop gap short term. I mean when you build roads, bridges, and do park improvement the work eventually ends.

I would think improving our crumbling infrastructure would be one of the best places to spend money. At least that's building with long term goals in mind. There may be some debate about which areas should see the money but I have no complaints about putting the money into tangible improvements that we'd eventually have to spend money on anyways.

wild1
06-08-2009, 11:28 AM
Biden also asked us not to turn on them when terrorists hit the US again.

If they do hit us again, it's won't be Dear Leader's fault. He just "inherited" that ill will from the previous administration. Just like he "inherited" everything else.

Just wanted to repeat the word "inherited" a few times, to make sure you know that you can't ask the President to do a competent job running the country.

Calcountry
06-08-2009, 11:29 AM
Why....

If I spend and you spend and business spends and it is refered to as trickle down and held in contempt by the Left...

Why if Obonomics spends the same amount it is seen as manna from heaven?The dumb ass, signed the porkulous, then proceeded to hammer the economy from the bully pulpit for almost a month. I admit, it was in the context of blaming Bush, but nevertheless he bad mouthed THE economy for a month before someone grabed him by the shirt sleeve and whispered in his ear," mr. president, it is AMERICA'S economy and right now, you are the President of AMERICA, so, you are like, bad mouthing your own economy. THat was good when you were campaigning as an outsider, but, you it is your bed to sleep in. You many not like America, but it is the only America you are going to get. Just go ahead, and keep fugging doubting the United States of America Mr. President.

Calcountry
06-08-2009, 11:30 AM
If they do hit us again, it's won't be Dear Leader's fault. He just "inherited" that ill will from the previous administration. Just like he "inherited" everything else.

Just wanted to repeat the word "inherited" a few times, to make sure you know that you can't ask the President to do a competent job running the country.I hope he Mirandizes them before he arrests them, that is if he can catch the terrorists.

I hope the city they hit isn't close to where I live.

jAZ
06-08-2009, 11:31 AM
LOL

Whatever the excuse that Obama's facebook friends offer for this, nothing can change the fact that Obama's own team said that the employment situation would be considerably better without porkulus than it's turned out being with porkulus.

You have FAILed to establish causailty anywhere here.

petegz28
06-08-2009, 11:39 AM
so Obama is God now???

Chief Faithful
06-08-2009, 11:41 AM
You have FAILed to establish causailty anywhere here.

Absolutely, we all know the problem was just inherited, Obama just failed to understand the depth of the economic collapse. I blame him for only spending $1Trillion when we now realize this was really a $2Trillion mess.

petegz28
06-08-2009, 11:46 AM
Absolutely, we all know the problem was just inherited, Obama just failed to understand the depth of the economic collapse. I blame him for only spending $1Trillion when we now realize this was really a $2Trillion mess.

Yes, he inherrited the problem him and his fellow Dems who controlled the House and Senate created over the 2 years prior to his taking office. LMAO

Chief Faithful
06-08-2009, 11:47 AM
so Obama is God now???

Worst God ever!

SBK
06-08-2009, 11:49 AM
Anyone with a brain knows what Obama is doing won't work. It never has, and it never will.

You don't build up the private sector by destroying it. You don't build the economy by destroying what drives it, the private sector.

With all the faith his followers have put on him it's going to be a long hard fall when they wake up and see they've been hurt by the one they immaculated to help them.
Posted via Mobile Device

Chief Faithful
06-08-2009, 11:54 AM
Yes, he inherrited the problem him and his fellow Dems who controlled the House and Senate created over the 2 years prior to his taking office. LMAO

The irony is how much the Democrats demonized Bush for the record deficit that was passed by the Democrat Congress. Then when they got the White House they proceed to smash the old record by 4x without even a hint of disagreement and they are not done yet. The basic right to "free" health care is coming this year.

jAZ
06-08-2009, 11:59 AM
Absolutely, we all know the problem was just inherited, Obama just failed to understand the depth of the economic collapse. I blame him for only spending $1Trillion when we now realize this was really a $2Trillion mess.

Maybe I missed how anything presented here demonstrates that the stimulus destroyed jobs.

HonestChieffan
06-08-2009, 12:17 PM
I would think improving our crumbling infrastructure would be one of the best places to spend money. At least that's building with long term goals in mind. There may be some debate about which areas should see the money but I have no complaints about putting the money into tangible improvements that we'd eventually have to spend money on anyways.

Ever been to Cleveland Missouri?

They got $175,000 to put a sidewalk on one side of their street.

google Cleveland and see how good this is.

***SPRAYER
06-08-2009, 02:01 PM
B.O. is a jackass

WASHINGTON – Eager to show action on the ailing economy, President Barack Obama promised Monday to speed federal money into hundreds of public works projects this summer, vowing that 600,000 jobs will be created or saved. Surrounded by his Cabinet, Obama emphasized what has become a dominant issue of public concern — an economy that keeps bleeding jobs — on the day after returning from a week of diplomacy and sightseeing in the Middle East and Europe.

He concentrated in his remarks on the billions of dollars from a taxpayer-funded plan that will be disbursed this summer, although much what he was described was already in the works, spurring new debate about just how much the $787 billion stimulus plan is helping.

"We've done more than ever, faster than ever, more responsibility than ever, to get the gears of the economy moving again," Obama said. Based on the work done across a broad spectrum of federal agencies during the first 100 days of the administration, the president said, "we're in a position to really accelerate."

But at the same time, he said he wasn't happy with the progress made so far and pressed his Cabinet to keep at it.

He said he was pleased the economy lost fewer jobs in May than experts anticipated, saying that was a sign things were moving in the right direction. But Obama also cautioned bluntly that "we're still in the middle of a very deep recession" and said "it's going to take a considerable amount of time for us to pull out."

The jobs initiative under the stimulus law covers an array of public works ranging from parks and wastewater projects to improvements at military facilities, airports and veteran medical centers.

The ramp-up is not surprising; the administration had always viewed the summer as a peak for stimulus spending, as better weather permits more public works construction and federal agencies had processed requests.

Republicans remain critical of the stimulus spending, slamming it as a big government program that ultimately will do little for recovery.

Said Obama: "Our ultimate goal is making sure that the average family out there, mom working, dad working — that they are able to pay their bills, feel some job security, make their mortgage payments."

The sheer enormity of the spending plan and its long-term costs to the public have raised concern for many Americans and given Republicans a foothold.

A recent Associated Press-GfK poll found that 41 percent of those surveyed disapproved of Obama's handling of the deficit, his highest disapproval rating on any subject polled. Other surveys show that the public is particularly attuned to government spending and the amount of red ink in the budget.

Without naming names, Obama shot back at skeptics during the Cabinet meeting.

"I know that they are some who, despite all evidence to the contrary, still don't believe in the necessity and promise of this recovery," Obama said. "And I would suggest to them that they talk to the companies who, because of this plan, scrapped the idea of laying off employees and in fact decided to hire employees. Tell that to the Americans who received that unexpected call saying, `Come back to work.'"

The White House announced a Web site, http://www.whitehouse.gov/recovery, to allow people to share stories and videos of projects in their towns.

Just how much of an impact Obama's recovery program had on the pace of job losses is up for debate.

Obama has claimed as many as 150,000 jobs saved or created by his stimulus plan so far, even as government reports have shown the economy has lost more than 1.6 million jobs since Congress approved funding for the program in February.

Obama initially offered his stimulus plan as a way to put people back to work, a promise that 3.5 million jobs would be saved or created. The administration's predictions that unemployment would rise no higher than 8 percent already have been shattered.

Federal agencies will release billions of stimulus dollars to states in the coming months.

Health and Human Services will provide funding for 1,129 health centers to provide expanded service for 300,000 patients; Interior will begin improvements on 107 national parks; Veterans Affairs will start work on 90 medical centers in 38 states; the Justice Department will fund 5,000 law enforcement jobs; the Agriculture Department will begin 200 new rural waste and water system projects; and the Environmental Protection Agency will begin or accelerate the cleanup of 20 Superfund sites.



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_obama_stimulus

Chief Faithful
06-08-2009, 02:04 PM
Maybe I missed how anything presented here demonstrates that the stimulus destroyed jobs.

Same can be said about the simulus creating jobs. What was demonstrated is Obummer missed his projections big time and the economic downward spiral seems to have gained a second wind. But, I'm sure Obama had nothing to do with current economic numbers continuing their decline.

***SPRAYER
06-08-2009, 02:05 PM
http://www.thepeoplescube.com/images/Obama_Coin_ExactChange_160.gif

Chief Faithful
06-08-2009, 02:07 PM
I would think improving our crumbling infrastructure would be one of the best places to spend money. At least that's building with long term goals in mind. There may be some debate about which areas should see the money but I have no complaints about putting the money into tangible improvements that we'd eventually have to spend money on anyways.

Yeah, I heard Acorn is spending their billion dollar gift to build bridges.

mlyonsd
06-08-2009, 02:09 PM
I would think improving our crumbling infrastructure would be one of the best places to spend money. At least that's building with long term goals in mind. There may be some debate about which areas should see the money but I have no complaints about putting the money into tangible improvements that we'd eventually have to spend money on anyways.

I don't have a problem improving our crumbling infrastructure if it's coming from money already in the coffers.

This is nothing more than a spend-a-holic taking a brand new credit card to Chicago's Miracle Mile for the weekend.

If the money was being spent on long term jobs that would be one thing, but short term summer time construction jobs aren't long term. Especially when you're borrowing to pay for them.

***SPRAYER
06-08-2009, 02:11 PM
Yeah, I heard Acorn is spending their billion dollar gift to build bridges.

ROFL

Stewie
06-08-2009, 02:16 PM
Worst God ever!

LMAOLMAOLMAO

That made me laugh out loud!

Obama seems to think that the gov't can create jobs. It can't. Never did, never will.

dirk digler
06-08-2009, 02:18 PM
I don't have a problem improving our crumbling infrastructure if it's coming from money already in the coffers.

This is nothing more than a spend-a-holic taking a brand new credit card to Chicago's Miracle Mile for the weekend.

If the money was being spent on long term jobs that would be one thing, but short term summer time construction jobs aren't long term. Especially when you're borrowing to pay for them.

Sorry mlyonsd to me that just sounds like the same tired excuses we have heard for the last 20 years.

The main reason why I voted for Obama was because I wanted him to start fixing things that we have kicked down the road for 20-30 years because the people in Washington are too gutless and only worry about their political future instead of actual fixing shit.

We have been talking about getting off foregin oil since Nixon was POTUS. That was almost 40 years ago and nothing has been done.

We have been talking about fixing health care for over 20 with little or nothing done.

Our infrastructure used to be the best in the world but now it is crumbling because people don't want to spend the money to fix roads and bridges and the electrical grid.

What are we going to do? Kick the can down the road for 20 more years?

mlyonsd
06-08-2009, 02:31 PM
Sorry mlyonsd to me that just sounds like the same tired excuses we have heard for the last 20 years.

The main reason why I voted for Obama was because I wanted him to start fixing things that we have kicked down the road for 20-30 years because the people in Washington are too gutless and only worry about their political future instead of actual fixing shit.

We have been talking about getting off foregin oil since Nixon was POTUS. That was almost 40 years ago and nothing has been done.

We have been talking about fixing health care for over 20 with little or nothing done.

Our infrastructure used to be the best in the world but now it is crumbling because people don't want to spend the money to fix roads and bridges and the electrical grid.

What are we going to do? Kick the can down the road for 20 more years?

They are tired excuses because 'knowing you don't have a way to pay for new shiny things has always kept us from having them' was the norm.

If charging up all our credit cards with no idea how we're going to pay for them is the new norm it's irresponsible.

I'd say the majority of jobs created by the so called stimulus are designed to be short term.

That in itself is kicking the issue down the road.

dirk digler
06-08-2009, 02:39 PM
They are tired excuses because 'knowing you don't have a way to pay for new shiny things has always kept us from having them' was the norm.

If charging up all our credit cards with no idea how we're going to pay for them is the new norm it's irresponsible.

I'd say the majority of jobs created by the so called stimulus are designed to be short term.

That in itself is kicking the issue down the road.

LMAO Since when?

We went into 2 wars with no way to pay for them. They passed a bloated Medicare bill that we couldn't pay for. What about all the funding for education that we couldn't pay for?

When Obama took office we were what 2 trillion in debt? Now all of a sudden we are supposed to have a come to Jesus meeting and become fiscally responsible?

Give me a break. One of the reasons why we are in this mess in the first place because we let shit get bad without ever fixing it and now it is time to pay the piper.

mlyonsd
06-08-2009, 02:42 PM
LMAO Since when?

We went into 2 wars with no way to pay for them. They passed a bloated Medicare bill that we couldn't pay for. What about all the funding for education that we couldn't pay for?

When Obama took office we were what 2 trillion in debt? Now all of a sudden we are supposed to have a come to Jesus meeting and become fiscally responsible?

Give me a break. One of the reasons why we are in this mess in the first place because we let shit get bad without ever fixing it and now it is time to pay the piper.

Point out some place where I suggested Bush or the republican congress was fiscally responsible.

Compounding it 10 times over is 10 times more stupid.

Oh, and you bypassed the issue of whether or not these are long term jobs.

dirk digler
06-08-2009, 02:47 PM
Point out some place where I suggested Bush or the republican congress was fiscally responsible.

Compounding it 10 times over is 10 times more stupid.

Oh, and you bypassed the issue of whether or not these are long term jobs.


mlyonsd you said "knowing you don't have a way to pay for new shiny things has always kept us from having them' was the norm."

So when did the norm change because I always thought that was the way it has always been?

I am sure there is alot of short-term jobs and I am sure there are several projects that will be longer term. The whole idea was to jumpstart the economy and get people back to work again.

Ultra Peanut
06-08-2009, 02:48 PM
OPORKULOSITY FAIL TELEPROMPTER

http://j.photos.cx/lookatthisdog-4f3.jpg

KC Dan
06-08-2009, 02:49 PM
One of the reasons why we are in this mess in the first place because we let shit get bad without ever fixing it and now it is time to pay the piper.
Except that we are not fixing it nor are we paying the piper. In fact, we are asking the piper to play a longer song that will last 50+ years long. The spending this time is on steroids - period. There is no addressing SS, Medicare/medicaid other than creating more red tape that will cost much, much, much more. The answer is to change the rules/benefits for access to the social programs AND raise taxes but that will never be done because they will lose votes. Thus, they are creating more programs so they can keep getting votes and the result - debt explodes...

dirk digler
06-08-2009, 02:56 PM
Except that we are not fixing it nor are we paying the piper. In fact, we are asking the piper to play a longer song that will last 50+ years long. The spending this time is on steroids - period. There is no addressing SS, Medicare/medicaid other than creating more red tape that will cost much, much, much more. The answer is to change the rules/benefits for access to the social programs AND raise taxes but that will never be done because they will lose votes. Thus, they are creating more programs so they can keep getting votes and the result - debt explodes...

We don't know yet about things being fixed because it just started so you might want to wait on your analysis Dan.

I agree with you about SS and that should be addressed and hopefully it will sometime in the very near future.

KC Dan
06-08-2009, 02:59 PM
We don't know yet about things being fixed because it just started so you might want to wait on your analysis Dan.

I agree with you about SS and that should be addressed and hopefully it will sometime in the very near future.They have been floating "new" taxes to pay for this health care proposal for 2 months, each new tax proposal has been shot down in conference committee. It ain't gonna happen without adding a whole heap more debt. I will wait to analyze but I think that we all know where this will head and it'll be our children's children who will eventually pay. Unless of course, we go bankrupt...

dirk digler
06-08-2009, 03:03 PM
They have been floating "new" taxes to pay for this health care proposal for 2 months, each new tax proposal has been shot down in conference committee. It ain't gonna happen without adding a whole heap more debt. I will wait to analyze but I think that we all know where this will head and it'll be our children's children who will eventually pay. Unless of course, we go bankrupt...

The health care proposal is going to be tricky and I admit I am not the most knowledgeable on how to fix it. I just know that it needs to be fixed and what ever the best plan is we should do it and I don't care whose plan it is.

Stewie
06-08-2009, 03:14 PM
The health care proposal is going to be tricky and I admit I am not the most knowledgeable on how to fix it. I just know that it needs to be fixed and what ever the best plan is we should do it and I don't care whose plan it is.

From what I can tell it will require gov't controlled pay for doctors, less money for research, and a pay cut from all medical personnel and medical suppliers. Ya know, less free market, more Marxism.

petegz28
06-08-2009, 03:22 PM
We don't know yet about things being fixed because it just started so you might want to wait on your analysis Dan.

I agree with you about SS and that should be addressed and hopefully it will sometime in the very near future.

I believe Bush wanted to address SS and the Dems said it was fine.

SBK
06-08-2009, 03:26 PM
Sorry mlyonsd to me that just sounds like the same tired excuses we have heard for the last 20 years.

The main reason why I voted for Obama was because I wanted him to start fixing things that we have kicked down the road for 20-30 years because the people in Washington are too gutless and only worry about their political future instead of actual fixing shit.

We have been talking about getting off foregin oil since Nixon was POTUS. That was almost 40 years ago and nothing has been done.

We have been talking about fixing health care for over 20 with little or nothing done.

Our infrastructure used to be the best in the world but now it is crumbling because people don't want to spend the money to fix roads and bridges and the electrical grid.

What are we going to do? Kick the can down the road for 20 more years?

Are you ok with him destroying things? What kind of 'fixing' did you vote for?

dirk digler
06-08-2009, 03:32 PM
From what I can tell it will require gov't controlled pay for doctors, less money for research, and a pay cut from all medical personnel and medical suppliers. Ya know, less free market, more Marxism.

I doubt that but we will see.

I believe Bush wanted to address SS and the Dems said it was fine.

Not too many people are in favor of putting their SS money into private investment accounts. I am curious if that money would have been protected this past year when the market dropped?

Are you ok with him destroying things? What kind of 'fixing' did you vote for?

So far he hasn't destroyed anything though I am sure you will disagree.

I voted for him to fix things like health care, energy, and infrastructure.

HemiEd
06-08-2009, 03:34 PM
Are you ok with him destroying things? What kind of 'fixing' did you vote for?

I can't imagine a guy fixing anything, that has never done anything. Oh thats right, he wrote a couple books, that should do it.

redsurfer11
06-08-2009, 03:35 PM
Obama is promising 600,000 "stimulus" jobs to be created over the summer.


LMAO...this guy has ruined this country inside of 4 months on the job


SMOKE AND MIRRORS. These jobs are created every summer. If Bozo the Clown was President, these jobs would still be there.

HonestChieffan
06-08-2009, 03:36 PM
SMOKE AND MIRRORS. These jobs are created every summer. If Bozo the Clown was President, these jobs would still be there.

Bozo the Clown is VP.

Get with it.

petegz28
06-08-2009, 04:00 PM
I doubt that but we will see.



Not too many people are in favor of putting their SS money into private investment accounts. I am curious if that money would have been protected this past year when the market dropped?



So far he hasn't destroyed anything though I am sure you will disagree.

I voted for him to fix things like health care, energy, and infrastructure.

Um hello...I know you depend on people to be rather ignorant to the facts but private accounts were only one piece of the SS issue. And the Dems REFUSED to even discuss SS while the "voluntary" private option was even on the table. In fact Sen. Babs Boxer said once it was taken off the table that fixing SS would be "cake". Yes, that was the exact word she used "cake".


So save the re-writing and sucking up to the Left.

Saul Good
06-08-2009, 04:03 PM
Maybe I missed how anything presented here demonstrates that the stimulus destroyed jobs.

It didn't destroy jobs. It's just going to destroy the value of the money that the few remaining jobs pay.

Saul Good
06-08-2009, 04:08 PM
We went into 2 wars with no way to pay for them.

True. Next time, we should save up our money and then start a war once we have enough in our piggybanks.

BucEyedPea
06-08-2009, 04:45 PM
Sorry mlyonsd to me that just sounds like the same tired excuses we have heard for the last 20 years.

The main reason why I voted for Obama was because I wanted him to start fixing things that we have kicked down the road for 20-30 years because the people in Washington are too gutless and only worry about their political future instead of actual fixing shit.

We have been talking about getting off foregin oil since Nixon was POTUS. That was almost 40 years ago and nothing has been done.

We have been talking about fixing health care for over 20 with little or nothing done.

Our infrastructure used to be the best in the world but now it is crumbling because people don't want to spend the money to fix roads and bridges and the electrical grid.

What are we going to do? Kick the can down the road for 20 more years?

Come on Dirk, the roads are crumbling and people not wanting to fix Bridges is because there's too much money spent on other things that we shouldn't be spending it on.

And the govt's attempts to fix health care have brought it to where it is today. You want more of the same?

mlyonsd
06-08-2009, 04:48 PM
mlyonsd you said "knowing you don't have a way to pay for new shiny things has always kept us from having them' was the norm."

So when did the norm change because I always thought that was the way it has always been?

I am sure there is alot of short-term jobs and I am sure there are several projects that will be longer term. The whole idea was to jumpstart the economy and get people back to work again.

So every time we go through a recession we're going to make up a trillion more dollars in unfunded spending to pull ourselves out?

That's the new part.

I hear economists claiming the recession will be over by the end of 2009. If so why push all the extra spending that hasn't been doled out yet?

Hint...the 2010 elections.

I do admit in that scenario there will be plenty of new jobs in the money printing business.

RedNeckRaider
06-08-2009, 04:52 PM
You mean I could have been SHITSPRAYER instead of SHTSPRAYER?

I feel so cheated.

That clip is flat out scary

dirk digler
06-08-2009, 05:00 PM
Um hello...I know you depend on people to be rather ignorant to the facts but private accounts were only one piece of the SS issue. And the Dems REFUSED to even discuss SS while the "voluntary" private option was even on the table. In fact Sen. Babs Boxer said once it was taken off the table that fixing SS would be "cake". Yes, that was the exact word she used "cake".


So save the re-writing and sucking up to the Left.

Well according to this obituary it was never taken off the table.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/15/AR2005111501408.html

petegz28
06-08-2009, 05:00 PM
That clip is flat out scary

Hell yes it is. Some of the people are litteraly living with their head in their ass any time they call a politican God. I don't care how good a politican is..he is still a politician.

dirk digler
06-08-2009, 05:01 PM
Come on Dirk, the roads are crumbling and people not wanting to fix Bridges is because there's too much money spent on other things that we shouldn't be spending it on.


That is probably true BEP because politicians are more concerned about their pet projects and lining their pockets.

petegz28
06-08-2009, 05:02 PM
Well according to this obituary it was never taken off the table.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/15/AR2005111501408.html

I think you missed the entire point. The Dems refused to even discuss SS whil eit was on the table....i. ****ing e., they had no intention of doing anything about SS and that was their excuse. And you know this but you still suck up to these people. When will you learn the only difference between Repubs and Dems is the a letter they put behind their name?


And since Bush is gone and thus the private option....why have the Dems said 0 about SS? Cause they have no intention of fixing it, cause they are rich and it doesn't impact them and they need it to impact everyone else to help them get votes on their false and hollow promises.

petegz28
06-08-2009, 05:04 PM
That is probably true BEP because politicians are more concerned about their pet projects and lining their pockets.

Of course they are. That is about the first thing I have seen you say that makes sense in a long time.

Just like Repubs were not really against illegal immigration. They were so against it they did nothing about it when they had all the Senate, House and White House.

The day of the politican doing what is good for the people above all else has long since left us. If it ever existed at all.

mlyonsd
06-08-2009, 05:06 PM
Well according to this obituary it was never taken off the table.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/15/AR2005111501408.html

The proposal was 2% of your SS payments going into private funds.

If you're young and you don't see that as an opportunity you just don't get it.

petegz28
06-08-2009, 05:18 PM
The proposal was 2% of your SS payments going into private funds.

If you're young and you don't see that as an opportunity you just don't get it.

besides the fact it was voluntary at that. The Dems just wanted to take 0 chance of Bush doing anything good for SS and getting credit for it.

dirk digler
06-08-2009, 05:19 PM
I think you missed the entire point. The Dems refused to even discuss SS whil eit was on the table....i. ****ing e., they had no intention of doing anything about SS and that was their excuse. And you know this but you still suck up to these people. When will you learn the only difference between Repubs and Dems is the a letter they put behind their name?


And since Bush is gone and thus the private option....why have the Dems said 0 about SS? Cause they have no intention of fixing it, cause they are rich and it doesn't impact them and they need it to impact everyone else to help them get votes on their false and hollow promises.

That is one thing I am kind of disappointed in Obama about and that is fixing SS. He really didn't much about it during the campaign and it hasn't come up since he has been elected.

Of course they are. That is about the first thing I have seen you say that makes sense in a long time.

Just like Repubs were not really against illegal immigration. They were so against it they did nothing about it when they had all the Senate, House and White House.

The day of the politican doing what is good for the people above all else has long since left us. If it ever existed at all.

Wow a compliment from Pete. I will take it however I get it. :D

dirk digler
06-08-2009, 05:22 PM
The proposal was 2% of your SS payments going into private funds.

If you're young and you don't see that as an opportunity you just don't get it.

That was all well and good until the market dropped like a rock and then people would have lost all or most of it. Granted it is only 2% but you still would have taken a huge hit

petegz28
06-08-2009, 05:40 PM
That was all well and good until the market dropped like a rock and then people would have lost all or most of it. Granted it is only 2% but you still would have taken a huge hit

still not near as bad as not getting 10%-20% of of your payment which is what we are on schedule for.

And Babs Boxer is ok with now though that was not ok under Bush

mlyonsd
06-08-2009, 06:24 PM
That was all well and good until the market dropped like a rock and then people would have lost all or most of it. Granted it is only 2% but you still would have taken a huge hit

Over the long haul the market is the best place to increase a pile of cash.

What makes you think people wouldn't have the option of moving their SS private investment accounts to a money market?

I seriously don't know if the discussions got that far.

patteeu
06-08-2009, 08:11 PM
To be fair several states have been holding out on receiving funds and one Republican got over-turned last week so they will be soon receiving funds.

Also according to the official site only 43 Billion has been paid out of the 135 billion accessible.

http://www.recovery.gov/?q=content/report-progress

To be fair, Obama's economic team said we'd be in much better shape without porkulus than we are with it in whatever form it has taken. Saying that porkulus hasn't been completely implemented doesn't change that or account for it.

patteeu
06-08-2009, 08:20 PM
I would think improving our crumbling infrastructure would be one of the best places to spend money. At least that's building with long term goals in mind. There may be some debate about which areas should see the money but I have no complaints about putting the money into tangible improvements that we'd eventually have to spend money on anyways.

What money?

patteeu
06-08-2009, 08:27 PM
You have FAILed to establish causailty anywhere here.

:LOL: The Obama economic team has apparently FAILed to establish any causality too. But they did tell us that doing nothing would be better than what they've been able to accomplish by a substantial margin. On behalf of responsible Americans everywhere, I'd like a refund.

patteeu
06-08-2009, 08:36 PM
LMAO Since when?

We went into 2 wars with no way to pay for them. They passed a bloated Medicare bill that we couldn't pay for. What about all the funding for education that we couldn't pay for?

When Obama took office we were what 2 trillion in debt? Now all of a sudden we are supposed to have a come to Jesus meeting and become fiscally responsible?

Give me a break. One of the reasons why we are in this mess in the first place because we let shit get bad without ever fixing it and now it is time to pay the piper.

This is completely false. It's disgusting that you even compare the cost of the wars we're fighting with Obama's extravagant and reckless spending. As my signature currently points out, Obama spent more in 4 weeks than GWBush spent on the Iraq war in 4 freaking years. There is no comparison here. Even with the medicare expansion, which I was not at all in favor of, Bush doesn't register on the scale when it's lined up next to Obama spending. And notice that Obama hasn't repealed any of the Bush medicare expenditures. He's currently talking about EVEN MORE dramatic increases in permanent healthcare spending to pile on top of the Bush spending in that area.

Give ME a break.

***SPRAYER
06-08-2009, 08:39 PM
5 months in and this jackass already knows he's in way over his head

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090608/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_stimulus

patteeu
06-08-2009, 08:39 PM
We don't know yet about things being fixed because it just started so you might want to wait on your analysis Dan.

I agree with you about SS and that should be addressed and hopefully it will sometime in the very near future.

You don't appear to care about accountability at all. We know what Obama said was going to happen as a result of Porkulus and we know what he said was going to happen if we did nothing (see the OP). We are currently experiencing a situation which is worse than doing nothing. If you can't hold Obama accountable for the failures measured by his own measuring stick, when will you ever be able to hold him accountable?

***SPRAYER
06-08-2009, 08:40 PM
This is completely false. It's disgusting that you even compare the cost of the wars we're fighting with Obama's extravagant and reckless spending. As my signature currently points out, Obama spent more in 4 weeks than GWBush spent on the Iraq war in 4 freaking years. There is no comparison here. Even with the medicare expansion, which I was not at all in favor of, Bush doesn't register on the scale when it's lined up next to Obama spending. And notice that Obama hasn't repealed any of the Bush medicare expenditures. He's currently talking about EVEN MORE dramatic increases in permanent healthcare spending to pile on top of the Bush spending in that area.

Give ME a break.


One by one, sooner or later, the moonbats will realize that their hero is a big fat dud.

kOZ will probably be the last man standing.

dirk digler
06-08-2009, 09:32 PM
This is completely false. It's disgusting that you even compare the cost of the wars we're fighting with Obama's extravagant and reckless spending. As my signature currently points out, Obama spent more in 4 weeks than GWBush spent on the Iraq war in 4 freaking years. There is no comparison here. Even with the medicare expansion, which I was not at all in favor of, Bush doesn't register on the scale when it's lined up next to Obama spending. And notice that Obama hasn't repealed any of the Bush medicare expenditures. He's currently talking about EVEN MORE dramatic increases in permanent healthcare spending to pile on top of the Bush spending in that area.

Give ME a break.

Maybe you should read the question I was responding to before popping off. Mylonsd stated that it was the norm to not pay for things that we didn't have money for. So I gave him examples which show that is not true. We didn't have the money for any of the wars, or Medicare, or education bills. That is why when Obama came into office he had a 2 trillion dollar deficit. That isn't entirely Bush's fault, Clinton spent alot of money as did Reagan and probably Carter before him. The fact is the norm is just the opposite, we always spend money we don't have.

Cannibal
06-08-2009, 09:42 PM
Don't ever question God



<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/fxdt_f0hwUg&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/fxdt_f0hwUg&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Velvet_Jones
06-08-2009, 10:17 PM
The main reason why I voted for Obama was because I wanted him to start fixing things that we have kicked down the road for 20-30 years because the people in Washington are too gutless and only worry about their political future instead of actual fixing shit.

Thanks for fucking up our country because you want to drive on smooth roads.

This has got to be the stupidest statement I have ever heard. You have been supporting every single Marxist move this fucker has made. Do yourself a favor and stop being stupid.

You helped Obama break a nation.

Velvet_Jones
06-08-2009, 10:22 PM
That is why when Obama came into office he had a 2 trillion dollar deficit.

This is funny - we never had a 2 trillion dollar deficit - until your boy was in office. Are you talking about the national debt? That is different. But Obama is getting ready to triple + our national debt - if he gets any buyers. Face it, you were hood-winked and now you are either being stupid or bad at math.

SNR
06-08-2009, 10:23 PM
Thanks for ****ing up our country because you want to drive on smooth roads.

This has got to be the stupidest statement I have ever heard. You have been supporting every single Marxist move this ****er has made. Do yourself a favor and stop being stupid.

You helped Obama break a nation.Did dirk fuck everyone in your family or what?

wild1
06-08-2009, 10:26 PM
One by one, sooner or later, the moonbats will realize that their hero is a big fat dud.

kOZ will probably be the last man standing.

No they won't. They have a cult-like bond with him.

Velvet_Jones
06-08-2009, 10:27 PM
LMAO Since when?

We went into 2 wars with no way to pay for them. They passed a bloated Medicare bill that we couldn't pay for. What about all the funding for education that we couldn't pay for?

You forgot to say shitty education. So now we need to have a war fund?

Who is this they - they are mostly Democrats. You need to shut up and quite being stupid.

Velvet_Jones
06-08-2009, 10:56 PM
Not too many people are in favor of putting their SS money into private investment accounts. I am curious if that money would have been protected this past year when the market dropped?

This is funny. Privatizing SS have little to do with risk - it had to do with the 12.5% of a persons wages that goes into a bottomless pit. It had to do with control over the the assets of a person's contributions and who owns them. You want the Government to own them and others want the contributor and their descendants to own them. 'splain that?


So far he hasn't destroyed anything though I am sure you will disagree.

Nothing other than giving 2 of 3 American car companies to their unionized workers and throwing money at our financial system with the transparency of a ****ing lead wall - and ****ing up our foreign policy - other that - he is doing well. Of course I could be critical about his dog buying prowess and spending 350k taking pictures of Air Force One and several thousand more taking the First Sasquatch to a Broadway play. Did I mention that he sucks a mean Islamic dick?

I voted for him to fix things like health care, energy, and infrastructure.

Hehehe - You are an idiot. He will fix none of these. The government can't fix these - The free market can but that would require a little intelligence. This is beyond your senses.

Velvet_Jones
06-08-2009, 11:05 PM
That was all well and good until the market dropped like a rock and then people would have lost all or most of it. Granted it is only 2% but you still would have taken a huge hit

And the devaluing of the dollar has no consequences. If you invested that 2% in CD's, why would you have a problem with that? - I know - you are ignorant.

Velvet_Jones
06-08-2009, 11:09 PM
To be fair, Obama's economic team said we'd be in much better shape without porkulus than we are with it in whatever form it has taken. Saying that porkulus hasn't been completely implemented doesn't change that or account for it.

If you are using the current accrual accounting rules that the IRS supports - we have already put that 780 billion on the general ledger and we are also ****ed.

Velvet_Jones
06-08-2009, 11:31 PM
Did dirk **** everyone in your family or what?

Not me - my kids - they have to pay for all this shit.

patteeu
06-09-2009, 06:06 AM
The proposal was 2% of your SS payments going into private funds.

If you're young and you don't see that as an opportunity you just don't get it.

Maybe you should read the question I was responding to before popping off. Mylonsd stated that it was the norm to not pay for things that we didn't have money for. So I gave him examples which show that is not true. We didn't have the money for any of the wars, or Medicare, or education bills. That is why when Obama came into office he had a 2 trillion dollar deficit. That isn't entirely Bush's fault, Clinton spent alot of money as did Reagan and probably Carter before him. The fact is the norm is just the opposite, we always spend money we don't have.

Except that your answer is still bogus. The deficits that GWBush created were affordable in the same way that borrowing on a house is normally affordable. Obama's deficits are the kind of extreme irresponsibility that compare to people buying a house they can't afford by finagling a sub-prime loan with a 2nd to cover the downpayment or by taking an interest-only loan on a speculative property.

Obama did not have a $2 trillion deficit when he came to office. He had the largest deficit in quite some time thanks to TARP 1 and in his first few weeks in office HE DROVE IT even higher with his irresponsible spending that is now proving to be a complete failure in the job creation department. What's more, he had campaigned on huge increases in spending even BEFORE the financial crisis led Bush and his democrat partners in Congress to enact TARP.

http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/wapoobamabudget1.jpg

What’s driving Obama’s unprecedented massive deficits? Spending. Riedl details (http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/):

* President Bush expanded the federal budget by a historic $700 billion through 2008. President Obama would add another $1 trillion.
* President Bush began a string of expensive financial bailouts. President Obama is accelerating that course.
* President Bush created a Medicare drug entitlement that will cost an estimated $800 billion in its first decade. President Obama has proposed a $634 billion down payment on a new govern*ment health care fund.
* President Bush increased federal education spending 58 percent faster than inflation. President Obama would double it.
* President Bush became the first President to spend 3 percent of GDP on federal antipoverty programs. President Obama has already increased this spending by 20 percent.
* President Bush tilted the income tax burden more toward upper-income taxpayers. President Obama would continue that trend.
* President Bush presided over a $2.5 trillion increase in the public debt through 2008. Setting aside 2009 (for which Presidents Bush and Obama share responsibility for an additional $2.6 trillion in public debt), President Obama’s budget would add $4.9 trillion in public debt from the beginning of 2010 through 2016.

wild1
06-09-2009, 06:16 AM
By WILLIAM MCGURN

Tony Fratto is envious.

Mr. Fratto was a colleague of mine in the Bush administration, and as a senior member of the White House communications shop, he knows just how difficult it can be to deal with a press corps skeptical about presidential economic claims. It now appears, however, that Mr. Fratto's problem was that he simply lacked the magic words -- jobs "saved or created."

"Saved or created" has become the signature phrase for Barack Obama as he describes what his stimulus is doing for American jobs. His latest invocation came yesterday, when the president declared that the stimulus had already saved or created at least 150,000 American jobs -- and announced he was ramping up some of the stimulus spending so he could "save or create" an additional 600,000 jobs this summer. These numbers come in the context of an earlier Obama promise that his recovery plan will "save or create three to four million jobs over the next two years."

Mr. Fratto sees a double standard at play. "We would never have used a formula like 'save or create,'" he tells me. "To begin with, the number is pure fiction -- the administration has no way to measure how many jobs are actually being 'saved.' And if we had tried to use something this flimsy, the press would never have let us get away with it."

Of course, the inability to measure Mr. Obama's jobs formula is part of its attraction. Never mind that no one -- not the Labor Department, not the Treasury, not the Bureau of Labor Statistics -- actually measures "jobs saved." As the New York Times delicately reports, Mr. Obama's jobs claims are "based on macroeconomic estimates, not an actual counting of jobs." Nice work if you can get away with it.

And get away with it he has. However dubious it may be as an economic measure, as a political formula "save or create" allows the president to invoke numbers that convey an illusion of precision. Harvard economist and former Bush economic adviser Greg Mankiw calls it a "non-measurable metric." And on his blog, he acknowledges the political attraction.

"The expression 'create or save,' which has been used regularly by the President and his economic team, is an act of political genius," writes Mr. Mankiw. "You can measure how many jobs are created between two points in time. But there is no way to measure how many jobs are saved. Even if things get much, much worse, the President can say that there would have been 4 million fewer jobs without the stimulus."

Mr. Obama's comments yesterday are a perfect illustration of just such a claim. In the months since Congress approved the stimulus, our economy has lost nearly 1.6 million jobs and unemployment has hit 9.4%. Invoke the magic words, however, and -- presto! -- you have the president claiming he has "saved or created" 150,000 jobs. It all makes for a much nicer spin, and helps you forget this is the same team that only a few months ago promised us that passing the stimulus would prevent unemployment from rising over 8%.

It's not only former Bush staffers such as Messrs. Fratto and Mankiw who have noted the political convenience here. During a March hearing of the Senate Finance Committee, Chairman Max Baucus challenged Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner on the formula.

"You created a situation where you cannot be wrong," said the Montana Democrat. "If the economy loses two million jobs over the next few years, you can say yes, but it would've lost 5.5 million jobs. If we create a million jobs, you can say, well, it would have lost 2.5 million jobs. You've given yourself complete leverage where you cannot be wrong, because you can take any scenario and make yourself look correct."

Now, something's wrong when the president invokes a formula that makes it impossible for him to be wrong and it goes largely unchallenged. It's true that almost any government spending will create some jobs and save others. But as Milton Friedman once pointed out, that doesn't tell you much: The government, after all, can create jobs by hiring people to dig holes and fill them in.

If the "saved or created" formula looks brilliant, it's only because Mr. Obama and his team are not being called on their claims. And don't expect much to change. So long as the news continues to repeat the administration's line that the stimulus has already "saved or created" 150,000 jobs over a time period when the U.S. economy suffered an overall job loss 10 times that number, the White House would be insane to give up a formula that allows them to spin job losses into jobs saved.

"You would think that any self-respecting White House press corps would show some of the same skepticism toward President Obama's jobs claims that they did toward President Bush's tax cuts," says Mr. Fratto. "But I'm still waiting."

Write to MainStreet@wsj.com

dirk digler
06-09-2009, 06:17 AM
This is funny - we never had a 2 trillion dollar deficit - until your boy was in office. Are you talking about the national debt? That is different. But Obama is getting ready to triple + our national debt - if he gets any buyers. Face it, you were hood-winked and now you are either being stupid or bad at math.

You are right my bad, coming into office he had a 1.2-1.3 trillion dollar deficit. The CBO this past month changed that to 1.8 which is where I got that number from (obviously rounding up).

May 11, 2009 11:43 AM
The director of the Congressional Budget Office today updated his projections for the budget and economic outlook and is now anticipating a $1.8 trillion deficit this year, and $1.4 trillion in 2010.

patteeu
06-09-2009, 06:24 AM
If Obama continues to save or create 150,000 jobs for every 2,150,000 jobs we lose, this recession might last a while.

wild1
06-09-2009, 06:30 AM
If Obama continues to save or create 150,000 jobs for every 2,150,000 jobs we lose, this recession might last a while.

Yeah... a few more of these economic triumphs by Obama and we will really be in trouble.

patteeu
06-09-2009, 06:36 AM
You are right my bad, coming into office he had a 1.2-1.3 trillion dollar deficit. The CBO this past month changed that to 1.8 which is where I got that number from (obviously rounding up).

That 1.8 includes Obama's porkulus and the tax shortfall impact of Obama's worsening economy, doesn't it?

dirk digler
06-09-2009, 06:39 AM
Except that your answer is still bogus. The deficits that GWBush created were affordable in the same way that borrowing on a house is normally affordable. Obama's deficits are the kind of extreme irresponsibility that compare to people buying a house they can't afford by finagling a sub-prime loan with a 2nd to cover the downpayment or by taking an interest-only loan on a speculative property.

Obama did not have a $2 trillion deficit when he came to office. He had the largest deficit in quite some time thanks to TARP 1 and in his first few weeks in office HE DROVE IT even higher with his irresponsible spending that is now proving to be a complete failure in the job creation department. What's more, he had campaigned on huge increases in spending even BEFORE the financial crisis led Bush and his democrat partners in Congress to enact TARP.

Once again that still doesn't change the answer that I gave to mylonsd. We didn't have the money for the wars, or the Medicaid bill or any other bill because we were borrowing money from China to pay for them.

You may think Obama is irresponsible but Bush started the trend.


From Oct 2004

But the cost to the public has been a return to the exploding deficits of the Reagan years. Bush blew through Clinton’s surplus in his first year. The 2004 deficit reached $415 billion, a record. Still, its real size is masked by the fact that Bush has shifted $150 billion from the Social Security trust fund in order to make the shortfall look smaller. It’s like pretending you’re richer when you move money from one pocket to another. Both sums have to be repaid, so the real amount borrowed is the $415 billion “nominal” deficit plus the $150 billion from Social Security or $565 billion.

This shell game with federal trust funds taints all official forecasts about Bush’s deficits going forward. For example, the Congressional Budget Office estimates Bush’s cumulative ten year deficit at $2.3 trillion, to be sure, a breathtaking shortfall from the $5.6 trillion surplus he inherited from Clinton. But as with the yearly number, this one ignores the trust fund sleight of hand, an omission of some $2.4 trillion. When this is added back in, Bush’s ten year deficit leaps to $4.7 trillion, $10.3 trillion short of Clinton’s number.

But even that number is understated because the CBO forecasts are based on current law. Bush’s tax cuts have not yet been made permanent. If Bush is re-elected and the cuts are made permanent, that would add another $3.2 trillion to the shortfall. It was not too long ago that a $3.2 trillion increment to anything would have made sober people’s noses bleed but such figures are mere accounting details to the Big Thinkers in the White House, especially since it will not be their constituents who are paying it back.

Add it all together—the “nominal” deficit, the stealth siphoning from Social Security, and the permanent effects of Bush’s tax cuts—and the 10 year deficit explodes to a mind-boggling $7.9 trillion. Within ten years, the government will owe more than $15 trillion. And this, at precisely the time the government needs fiscal solvency to begin paying the Baby Boomers their Social Security.

This run-up in debt represents the most rapid, predatory looting of public wealth in the history of the world. The interest costs alone will consume the government and, soon, the entire economy. In fiscal 2004, interest costs came to $321 billion against a deficit of $415 billion. So three quarters of all the current year borrowing is spent paying interest on past borrowing. This is the most immediate symptom of the deficit death spiral.

And the situation will only get worse when interest rates rise, as they must. The U.S. has enjoyed an unprecedented period of low rates, the lowest in 50 years. The only direction they can go is up. And they will rise quickly once foreigners, who are more and more the buyers of U.S. debt, become saturated with dollars and begin to eschew additional lending.

dirk digler
06-09-2009, 06:45 AM
That 1.8 includes Obama's porkulus and the tax shortfall impact of Obama's worsening economy, doesn't it?

Yes

patteeu
06-09-2009, 06:46 AM
Once again that still doesn't change the answer that I gave to mylonsd. We didn't have the money for the wars, or the Medicaid bill or any other bill because we were borrowing money from China to pay for them.

You may think Obama is irresponsible but Bush started the trend.

No, he didn't start the trend. We've been deficit spending for decades now. Even during the so-called surplus years, our national debt increased every year. But Obama's deficit spending is new. Obama's level of irresponsibility is new.

patteeu
06-09-2009, 06:47 AM
Yes

So he didn't inherit it, he helped create it.

dirk digler
06-09-2009, 06:57 AM
No, he didn't start the trend. We've been deficit spending for decades now. Even during the so-called surplus years, our national debt increased every year. But Obama's deficit spending is new. Obama's level of irresponsibility is new.

When Bush was in office he spent a record amount of money and ran up a record deficit. He started the trend and Obama is taking it to another level.

So he didn't inherit it, he helped create it.

He both inherited it and is adding to it.

patteeu
06-09-2009, 07:11 AM
When Bush was in office he spent a record amount of money and ran up a record deficit. He started the trend and Obama is taking it to another level.



He both inherited it and is adding to it.

He's "adding to it" and "taking it to another level", that's for sure. Meanwhile, we've lost more jobs than Obama predicted we'd lose if we hadn't passed porkulus at all. Enjoy your bread and circuses while you can.

***SPRAYER
06-09-2009, 09:54 AM
"We would never have used a formula like 'save or create,'" he tells me. "To begin with, the number is pure fiction -- the administration has no way to measure how many jobs are actually being 'saved.' And if we had tried to use something this flimsy, the press would never have let us get away with it."

Barack the magic negro, lived by the sea! And frollicked in the autumn grass...

patteeu
06-09-2009, 01:03 PM
Barack Obama has destroyed or allowed to be lost 2.15 million jobs in just a little over 4 months.

KC native
06-09-2009, 01:52 PM
Barack Obama has destroyed or allowed to be lost 2.15 million jobs in just a little over 4 months.

LMAO Riiiiiiight, cause it's not like the recession started in December of 2007 or anything. LMAO

HonestChieffan
06-09-2009, 02:03 PM
LMAO Riiiiiiight, cause it's not like the recession started in December of 2007 or anything. LMAO
Pick a date, any date its Bush its Bush yessss Happy Dance time in Obo land

KC native
06-09-2009, 02:07 PM
Pick a date, any date its Bush its Bush yessss Happy Dance time in Obo land

The trend of job losses started in 2007. Blaming Obama for those job losses is similar to blaming someone that jumps in front of a freight train and they you say it's their fault for not stopping it.

BucEyedPea
06-09-2009, 02:30 PM
the administration has no way to measure how many jobs are actually being 'saved.'

The same thing applies when the left, specifically banyon, says heavy regulations like min wage don't create less new jobs. You can't measure what was never created because of it.

wild1
06-09-2009, 03:23 PM
The trend of job losses started in 2007. Blaming Obama for those job losses is similar to blaming someone that jumps in front of a freight train and they you say it's their fault for not stopping it.

It could continue for 3 more years, and the Obama zombies would still say, "he inherited this from Bush"

patteeu
06-09-2009, 03:41 PM
LMAO Riiiiiiight, cause it's not like the recession started in December of 2007 or anything. LMAO

Nope, that number is all Obama's watch.

Nonfarm payroll numbers dropped by

Feb: 651,000 (http://www.ceridian.com/payroll_human_resources_article/1,6266,15327-70690,00.html)
Mar: 663,000 (http://www.stockmarketfunding.com/SMF-Blogs/Economic-Analysis/April-2009/SMF-Pro-Traders--THE-EMPLOYMENT-SITUATION---MARCH-.aspx)
April: 539,000 (http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:YEO_t4As8WoJ:www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf+%22THE+EMPLOYMENT+SITUATION:+april+2009%22&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a)
May: 345,000 (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm)
Total: 2,198,000

Simplex3
06-09-2009, 03:41 PM
That was all well and good until the market dropped like a rock and then people would have lost all or most of it. Granted it is only 2% but you still would have taken a huge hit

That 2% was the only % you are guaranteed. There is nothing in the Socialist Insecurity laws that say they have to pay you anything. It's the world's largest ponzi scheme.

patteeu
06-09-2009, 03:44 PM
The trend of job losses started in 2007. Blaming Obama for those job losses is similar to blaming someone that jumps in front of a freight train and they you say it's their fault for not stopping it.

Giving Obama any credit whatsoever for "creating or saving" jobs when the job picture is far worse than his own economists predicted if we'd have done nothing instead of passing his toxic spending program known as porkulus is ridiculous.

KC native
06-09-2009, 04:15 PM
Nope, that number is all Obama's watch.

Nonfarm payroll numbers dropped by

Feb: 651,000 (http://www.ceridian.com/payroll_human_resources_article/1,6266,15327-70690,00.html)
Mar: 663,000 (http://www.stockmarketfunding.com/SMF-Blogs/Economic-Analysis/April-2009/SMF-Pro-Traders--THE-EMPLOYMENT-SITUATION---MARCH-.aspx)
April: 539,000 (http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:YEO_t4As8WoJ:www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf+%22THE+EMPLOYMENT+SITUATION:+april+2009%22&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a)
May: 345,000 (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm)
Total: 2,198,000

So, why don't you run those back to the start of the recession so you can actually see the trend? How many were lost under Bush where this recession started?

Again I give presidents very little credit for anything economic but your post is nonsense and doesn't give any picture of what's going on. It's like taking a picture out of a car moving at 60 mph down the freeway and saying hey look at that tree right there but ignore the forest that started way before it.

Saul Good
06-09-2009, 04:30 PM
Giving Obama any credit whatsoever for "creating or saving" jobs when the job picture is far worse than his own economists predicted if we'd have done nothing instead of passing his toxic spending program known as porkulus is ridiculous.

Excellent post, Pat. In fact, I believe that your post just created or saved 1,000 jobs.

BigMeatballDave
06-09-2009, 04:35 PM
Gee, I'm sure glad politics doesn't make people childish...

Calcountry
06-09-2009, 04:51 PM
Barack Obama has destroyed or allowed to be lost 2.15 million jobs in just a little over 4 months.BTW, have you heard how Al Qaeda responded to his Olive Branch in Paaawkey staaaaahn?

Direckshun
06-09-2009, 04:53 PM
I offer no defenses, and hope unemployment numbers drop as Obama intended them to.

Calcountry
06-09-2009, 04:55 PM
Have you seen the 30 year mortgage rate lately?

5.5% now, not good. Good luck with those refi's. Hope you already have the deal done. Oh and, btw, the 30 year long bond is not looking good when Obama needs to dump his supply of bonds to fund his wild deficit spending. The Chinese have been balking by suggesting things like, sell the bonds denominated in Yuan, and "the world needs a new reserve currency".

Not looking good for the big spender. He broke the freaking bank in less than 6 months. That's what you get when you have to do everything so damned fast.

You spend a TRILLION dollars without even reading what you spent.

Calcountry
06-09-2009, 04:56 PM
I offer no defenses, and hope unemployment numbers drop as Obama intended them to.Obama intended to create OR SAVE jobs. Whatever the fug that means.

KC Dan
06-09-2009, 05:33 PM
I offer no defenses, and hope unemployment numbers drop as Obama intended them to.
me too

patteeu
06-09-2009, 08:28 PM
So, why don't you run those back to the start of the recession so you can actually see the trend? How many were lost under Bush where this recession started?

Again I give presidents very little credit for anything economic but your post is nonsense and doesn't give any picture of what's going on. It's like taking a picture out of a car moving at 60 mph down the freeway and saying hey look at that tree right there but ignore the forest that started way before it.

The trend was fully evident when Obama took office and when his OWN economic team made their predictions about what would happen to the jobs picture with and without porkulus. (see the graphic in the OP if you've forgotten). Unfortunately, instead of mitigating the slide, they exacerbated it by destroying or allowing to be destroyed over 2 million additional jobs beyond those that were already gone. FAIL.

patteeu
06-09-2009, 08:28 PM
Excellent post, Pat. In fact, I believe that your post just created or saved 1,000 jobs.

LMAO

BigRedChief
10-30-2009, 07:06 AM
Stimulus creates 650,000 jobs

White House releases first broad look at stimulus-funded employment, focusing on $150 billion in spending.

By Tami Luhby (http://money.cnn.com/2009/10/30/news/economy/Stimulus_jobs_created/mailto:tami.luhby@turner.com), CNNMoney.com senior writer
Last Updated: October 30, 2009: 7:46 AM ET

WASHINGTON (CNNMoney.com) -- The largest stimulus program in the nation's history has created or saved at least 650,000 state and local jobs, according to a report released by the Obama administration on Friday.

Based on approximately $150 billion in spending from the $787 billion recovery package, the tally is the first broad, concrete look at the stimulus program's impact on the economy. The numbers are drawn from tens of thousands ofreports from state and local recipients as well as private companies.
The White House said the actual number of jobs created so far is likely closer to 1 million, since its report on stimulus job creation only focused on $150 billion of the $339 billion in American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funds spent so far.

"We're solidly on track to create or save 3.5 million jobs by the time this program winds down," administration economist Jared Bernstein told CNN on Friday. "There's a lot more ammunition in that Recovery Act. The stimulus package is absolutely working, both in GDP terms and in terms of saving or creating jobs."

The Obama administration is expected to announce further details about jobs on Friday afternoon, after the government posts complete reports online on its stimulus data tracker Recovery.gov.

The numbers are sure to be used by both Democrats and Republicans to further their arguments about the stimulus plan's value.

The White House maintains that the funding saved the country from slipping into a depression and fueled the 3.5% growth (http://money.cnn.com/2009/10/29/news/economy/gdp/index.htm?postversion=2009102912) in the economy in the third quarter. Republicans point to the rising unemployment rate, now at a 26-year high of 9.8%, as a sign that the recovery act is a failure.
The administration's announcement also underscores how difficult it is to reliably size up the effectiveness of the massive stimulus program.
Recipients were tasked with calculating the number of full-time positions directly created or saved with stimulus funds as of Sept. 30. This is far from a simple, straightforward process. The instruction booklet alone was 60 pages long and the form had 99 data fields to complete, said Tim Dowd, chief executive of Input, a research company that follows government spending for contractors.

Two weeks ago, the government provided an early glimpse of the challenges of transparency when it reported that 30,383 jobs had created by stimulus-funded federal contracts given directly to companies. Within hours, errors emerged, including an initial report that a French vaccine maker received the largest stimulus contract, $1.4 billion. In fact it received an award one-100th the size.

Compiling state and local recipients' data is an even tougher lift. Though federal officials have been fact-checking the reports for the past three weeks, there are likely to be many mistakes.

"There will be a lot of discrepancies in the data," said Dowd. "Those discrepancies will grow significantly, not because of malicious intent but because of the complexity."

Among recipients' biggest hurdles are accounting for part-time or short-term jobs created, for people working on multiple stimulus projects and for positions saved recovery act funding.

Also, the job numbers do not include indirect positions, such as the deli worker who delivers lunch to the stimulus-funded construction sites or the concrete company that has to ramp up production to handle an increased number of contracts.

"The job numbers are at best going to be a rough outline of how the recovery act is impacting the economy," said Craig Jennings' senior policy analyst at OMB Watch.

States say the money is working

Several states have provided a sneak preview at their figures. California, for instance, released the results of its initial report filed on Oct. 10, which showed that stimulus saved or created 100,000 jobs. Tennessee added 7,700 positions, while Minnesota saved or created 11,800 jobs.
This week, more data trickled out, showing the complexity of the reporting.

Maryland announced Thursday that recovery funds fueled 4,464 direct positions. Officials also estimate that 1,451 indirect jobs were created or saved, while another 8,167 jobs were created or saved because of increased stimulus-related consumer spending. The state received awards of over $2 billion but spent only 11% of these funds, or $229,200.
"There are more than 14,000 Marylanders working today that otherwise would be facing unemployment," said Gov. Martin O'Malley.

In Massachusetts, a total of 23,500 residents were working because of the recovery act, said Gov. Deval Patrick on Wednesday. The state reported to the federal government that stimulus accounted for 8,800 full-time direct jobs. The state received about $4 billion in recovery funds.
"This report shows that our work is paying off," said Patrick. "Real jobs are being created or saved, real projects are underway and we're making real investment in our long-term economy."

Do you have a job because of the $787 billion stimulus package? We want to hear from people whose jobs have been created or saved by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Please e-mail your stories (http://money.cnn.com/2009/10/30/news/economy/Stimulus_jobs_created/mailto:real.stories@cnnmoney.com) to CNNMoney.com and you could be part of an upcoming article. For the CNNMoney.com Comment Policy, click here (http://money.cnn.com/services/privacy/index.html#commentPolicy).
--CNNMoney staff writer David Goldman contributed to this report. http://i.cdn.turner.com/money/images/bug.gif (http://cnnmoney.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=Stimulus+creates+650%2C000+jobs+-+White+House+says+-+Oct.+30%2C+2009&expire=-1&urlID=413759802&fb=Y&url=http%3A%2F%2Fmoney.cnn.com%2F2009%2F10%2F30%2Fnews%2Feconomy%2FStimulus_jo#TOP)
First Published: October 30, 2009: 7:24 AM ET


<!--Article End--><!--Bibliography Goes Here--><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD></TD></TR><TR><TD bgColor=#cccccc></TD></TR><TR><TD></TD></TR><TR><TD></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<!--Bibliography End--><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=font-cn></TD></TR><TR><TD class=font-cn>Find this article at:
http://money.cnn.com/2009/10/30/news/economy/Stimulus_jobs_created/index.htm
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

mlyonsd
10-30-2009, 07:09 AM
WASHINGTON (CNNMoney.com) -- The largest stimulus program in the nation's history has created or saved at least 650,000 state and local jobs, according to a report released by the Obama administration on Friday.


Well at least we can all agree it comes from a credible source.

petegz28
10-30-2009, 07:10 AM
Stimulus creates 650,000 jobs

White House releases first broad look at stimulus-funded employment, focusing on $150 billion in spending.

By Tami Luhby (http://money.cnn.com/2009/10/30/news/economy/Stimulus_jobs_created/mailto:tami.luhby@turner.com), CNNMoney.com senior writer
Last Updated: October 30, 2009: 7:46 AM ET

WASHINGTON (CNNMoney.com) -- The largest stimulus program in the nation's history has created or saved at least 650,000 state and local jobs, according to a report released by the Obama administration on Friday.

Based on approximately $150 billion in spending from the $787 billion recovery package, the tally is the first broad, concrete look at the stimulus program's impact on the economy. The numbers are drawn from tens of thousands ofreports from state and local recipients as well as private companies.
The White House said the actual number of jobs created so far is likely closer to 1 million, since its report on stimulus job creation only focused on $150 billion of the $339 billion in American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funds spent so far.

"We're solidly on track to create or save 3.5 million jobs by the time this program winds down," administration economist Jared Bernstein told CNN on Friday. "There's a lot more ammunition in that Recovery Act. The stimulus package is absolutely working, both in GDP terms and in terms of saving or creating jobs."

The Obama administration is expected to announce further details about jobs on Friday afternoon, after the government posts complete reports online on its stimulus data tracker Recovery.gov.

The numbers are sure to be used by both Democrats and Republicans to further their arguments about the stimulus plan's value.

The White House maintains that the funding saved the country from slipping into a depression and fueled the 3.5% growth (http://money.cnn.com/2009/10/29/news/economy/gdp/index.htm?postversion=2009102912) in the economy in the third quarter. Republicans point to the rising unemployment rate, now at a 26-year high of 9.8%, as a sign that the recovery act is a failure.
The administration's announcement also underscores how difficult it is to reliably size up the effectiveness of the massive stimulus program.
Recipients were tasked with calculating the number of full-time positions directly created or saved with stimulus funds as of Sept. 30. This is far from a simple, straightforward process. The instruction booklet alone was 60 pages long and the form had 99 data fields to complete, said Tim Dowd, chief executive of Input, a research company that follows government spending for contractors.

Two weeks ago, the government provided an early glimpse of the challenges of transparency when it reported that 30,383 jobs had created by stimulus-funded federal contracts given directly to companies. Within hours, errors emerged, including an initial report that a French vaccine maker received the largest stimulus contract, $1.4 billion. In fact it received an award one-100th the size.

Compiling state and local recipients' data is an even tougher lift. Though federal officials have been fact-checking the reports for the past three weeks, there are likely to be many mistakes.

"There will be a lot of discrepancies in the data," said Dowd. "Those discrepancies will grow significantly, not because of malicious intent but because of the complexity."

Among recipients' biggest hurdles are accounting for part-time or short-term jobs created, for people working on multiple stimulus projects and for positions saved recovery act funding.

Also, the job numbers do not include indirect positions, such as the deli worker who delivers lunch to the stimulus-funded construction sites or the concrete company that has to ramp up production to handle an increased number of contracts.

"The job numbers are at best going to be a rough outline of how the recovery act is impacting the economy," said Craig Jennings' senior policy analyst at OMB Watch.

States say the money is working

Several states have provided a sneak preview at their figures. California, for instance, released the results of its initial report filed on Oct. 10, which showed that stimulus saved or created 100,000 jobs. Tennessee added 7,700 positions, while Minnesota saved or created 11,800 jobs.
This week, more data trickled out, showing the complexity of the reporting.

Maryland announced Thursday that recovery funds fueled 4,464 direct positions. Officials also estimate that 1,451 indirect jobs were created or saved, while another 8,167 jobs were created or saved because of increased stimulus-related consumer spending. The state received awards of over $2 billion but spent only 11% of these funds, or $229,200.
"There are more than 14,000 Marylanders working today that otherwise would be facing unemployment," said Gov. Martin O'Malley.

In Massachusetts, a total of 23,500 residents were working because of the recovery act, said Gov. Deval Patrick on Wednesday. The state reported to the federal government that stimulus accounted for 8,800 full-time direct jobs. The state received about $4 billion in recovery funds.
"This report shows that our work is paying off," said Patrick. "Real jobs are being created or saved, real projects are underway and we're making real investment in our long-term economy."

Do you have a job because of the $787 billion stimulus package? We want to hear from people whose jobs have been created or saved by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Please e-mail your stories (http://money.cnn.com/2009/10/30/news/economy/Stimulus_jobs_created/mailto:real.stories@cnnmoney.com) to CNNMoney.com and you could be part of an upcoming article. For the CNNMoney.com Comment Policy, click here (http://money.cnn.com/services/privacy/index.html#commentPolicy).
--CNNMoney staff writer David Goldman contributed to this report. http://i.cdn.turner.com/money/images/bug.gif (http://cnnmoney.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=Stimulus+creates+650%2C000+jobs+-+White+House+says+-+Oct.+30%2C+2009&expire=-1&urlID=413759802&fb=Y&url=http%3A%2F%2Fmoney.cnn.com%2F2009%2F10%2F30%2Fnews%2Feconomy%2FStimulus_jo#TOP)
First Published: October 30, 2009: 7:24 AM ET


<!--Article End--><!--Bibliography Goes Here--><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD></TD></TR><TR><TD bgColor=#cccccc></TD></TR><TR><TD></TD></TR><TR><TD></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<!--Bibliography End--><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=font-cn></TD></TR><TR><TD class=font-cn>Find this article at:
http://money.cnn.com/2009/10/30/news/economy/Stimulus_jobs_created/index.htm
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Bullshit. Sorry...this is just Admin spin.

Stinger
10-30-2009, 07:36 AM
Stimulus jobs overstated by thousands
Email this Story

Oct 29, 6:35 AM (ET)

By BRETT J. BLACKLEDGE and MATT APUZZO


WASHINGTON (AP) - An early progress report on President Barack Obama's economic recovery plan overstates by thousands the number of jobs created or saved through the stimulus program, a mistake that White House officials promise will be corrected in future reports.

The government's first accounting of jobs tied to the $787 billion stimulus program claimed more than 30,000 positions paid for with recovery money. But that figure is overstated by least 5,000 jobs, according to an Associated Press review of a sample of stimulus contracts.

The AP review found some counts were more than 10 times as high as the actual number of jobs; some jobs credited to the stimulus program were counted two and sometimes more than four times; and other jobs were credited to stimulus spending when none was produced.

For example:

- A company working with the Federal Communications Commission reported that stimulus money paid for 4,231 jobs, when about 1,000 were produced.

- A Georgia community college reported creating 280 jobs with recovery money, but none was created from stimulus spending.

- A Florida child care center said its stimulus money saved 129 jobs but used the money on raises for existing employees.

There's no evidence the White House sought to inflate job numbers in the report. But administration officials seized on the 30,000 figure as evidence that the stimulus program was on its way toward fulfilling the president's promise of creating or saving 3.5 million jobs by the end of next year.

The reporting problem could be magnified Friday when a much larger round of reports is expected to show hundreds of thousands of jobs repairing public housing, building schools, repaving highways and keeping teachers on local payrolls.

The White House says it is aware there are problems. In an interview, Ed DeSeve, an Obama adviser helping to oversee the stimulus program, said agencies have been working with businesses that received the money to correct mistakes. Other errors discovered by the public also will be corrected, he said.

"If there's an error that was made, let's get it fixed," DeSeve said.

The White House released a statement early Thursday that it said laid out the "real facts" about how jobs were counted in the stimulus data distributed two weeks ago. It said that had been a test run of a small subset of data that had been subjected only to three days of reviews, that it had already corrected "virtually all" the mistakes identified by the AP and that the discovery of mistakes "does not provide a statistically significant indication of the quality of the full reporting that will come on Friday."

The data partially reviewed by the AP for errors included all the data presently available, representing all known federal contracts awarded to businesses under the stimulus program. The figures being released Friday include different categories of stimulus spending by state governments, housing authorities, nonprofit groups and other organizations.

As of early Thursday, on its recovery.org Web site, the government was still citing 30,383 as the actual number of jobs linked so far to stimulus spending, despite the mistakes the White House has now acknowledged and said were being corrected.

It's not clear just how far off the 30,000 claim was. The AP's review was not an exhaustive accounting of all 9,000 contracts, but homed in on the most obvious cases where there were indications of duplications or misinterpretations.

While the thousands of overstated jobs represent a tiny sliver of the overall economy, they represent a significant percentage of the initial employment count credited to the stimulus program.

Tom Gavin, a spokesman for the White House budget office, attributed the errors to officials as well as recipients having to conduct such reporting for the first time.

In fact, the AP review shows some businesses undercounted the number of jobs funded under the stimulus program by not reporting jobs saved.

Here are some of the findings:

- Colorado-based Teletech Government Solutions on a $28.3 million contract with the Federal Communications Commission for creation of a call center, reported creating 4,231 jobs, although 3,000 of those workers were paid for five weeks or less.

"We all felt it was an appropriate way to represent the data at the time" and the reporting error has been corrected, said company president Mariano Tan.

- The Toledo, Ohio-based Koring Group received two FCC contracts, again for call centers. It reported hiring 26 people for each contract, or a total of 52 jobs, but cited the same workers for both contracts. The jobs only lasted about two months.

The FCC spotted the problem. The company's owner, Steve Holland, acknowledged the actual job count is closer to five and blamed the problem on confusion about the reporting.

The AP's review identified nearly 600 contracts claiming stimulus money for more than 2,700 jobs that appear to have similar duplicated counts.

- Barbara Moore, executive director of the Child Care Association of Brevard County in Cocoa, Fla., reported that the $98,669 she received in stimulus money saved 129 jobs at her center, though the cash was used to give her 129 employees a 3.9 percent cost-of-living raise. She said she needed to boost their salaries because some workers had left "because we had not been able to give them a raise in four years."

- Officials at East Central Technical College in Douglas, Ga., said they now know they shouldn't have claimed 280 stimulus jobs linked to more than $200,000 to buy trucks and trailers for commercial driving instruction, and a modular classroom and bathroom for a health education program.

"It was an error on someone's part," said Mike Light, spokesman for the Technical College System of Georgia. The 280 were not jobs, but the number of students who would benefit, he said.

- The San Joaquin, Calif., Regional Rail Commission reported creating or saving 125 jobs as part of a stimulus project to lay railroad track. Because the project drew from two pools of money, the commission reported the jobs figure twice, bringing the total to 250 on the government report. Spokesman Thomas Reeves said the commission corrected the data Tuesday.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20091029/D9BKMVMG0.html

HonestChieffan
10-30-2009, 07:44 AM
The Associated Press has a team of people working on this overstatement of jobs issue. There was a guy on Fox last night and one on CBS who said there is a lot of hokuspokus in these numbers. Looks like the WH once again is going to be trapped in their own web.

wild1
10-30-2009, 07:52 AM
The Associated Press has a team of people working on this overstatement of jobs issue. There was a guy on Fox last night and one on CBS who said there is a lot of hokuspokus in these numbers. Looks like the WH once again is going to be trapped in their own web.

Even using their cooked books, there has still been a net loss of 2 million+ since January.

patteeu
10-30-2009, 07:57 AM
Stimulus creates 650,000 jobs

White House releases first broad look at stimulus-funded employment, focusing on $150 billion in spending.

By Tami Luhby (http://money.cnn.com/2009/10/30/news/economy/Stimulus_jobs_created/mailto:tami.luhby@turner.com), CNNMoney.com senior writer
Last Updated: October 30, 2009: 7:46 AM ET

WASHINGTON (CNNMoney.com) -- The largest stimulus program in the nation's history has created or saved at least 650,000 state and local jobs, according to a report released by the Obama administration on Friday.

Based on approximately $150 billion in spending from the $787 billion recovery package, the tally is the first broad, concrete look at the stimulus program's impact on the economy. The numbers are drawn from tens of thousands ofreports from state and local recipients as well as private companies.
The White House said the actual number of jobs created so far is likely closer to 1 million, since its report on stimulus job creation only focused on $150 billion of the $339 billion in American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funds spent so far.

...

Even if this were true, instead of self-serving spin/fabrication, that would mean that it cost over $230,000 to create or save each job on average.

Sorry, but that's not a winner.

wild1
10-30-2009, 08:04 AM
They could have just handed out checks for $30,000, probably around what most of these supposed jobs would pay in a year.

For the money just in that portion of the bill, they could have written a $30,000 check to 5 million people.

memyselfI
10-30-2009, 08:06 AM
Hasn"t anyone else realized that because Lite and his cronies SAY it that it MUST be true...
Posted via Mobile Device

patteeu
10-30-2009, 08:06 AM
They could have just handed out checks for $30,000, probably around what most of these supposed jobs would pay in a year.

For the money just in that portion of the bill, they could have written a $30,000 check to 5 million people.

*headslap* LOL

Direckshun
10-30-2009, 08:12 AM
I have not read anything other than the OP here, so I will say without a doubt the short-term job creation here has been awful.

But it's not an empty well. Not only has the Dow turned around -- the Dow usually being way, way out in front on how the economy will eventually perform -- and the GDP making the single biggest jump this past quarter than we've ever seen under Clinton, Reagan, or either Bush, and it's not hard to see how jobs will probably eventually come with the improvement (as long as it's sustained). The stimulus (as well as TARP) was a part of both of these.

Jobs lag behind the economy. It's common knowledge that job loss continues even during the initial recovery of a recession. That's what we're going through right now.

petegz28
10-30-2009, 08:15 AM
I have not read anything other than the OP here, so I will say without a doubt the short-term job creation here has been awful.

But it's not an empty well. Not only has the Dow turned around -- the Dow usually being way, way out in front on how the economy will eventually perform -- and the GDP making the single biggest jump this past quarter than we've ever seen under Clinton, Reagan, or either Bush, and it's not hard to see how jobs will probably eventually come with the improvement (as long as it's sustained). The stimulus (as well as TARP) was a part of both of these.

Jobs lag behind the economy. It's common knowledge that job loss continues even during the initial recovery of a recession. That's what we're going through right now.

Do you have any idea at all why the Dow turned around? Or are you just hoping one equates to the other?

Direckshun
10-30-2009, 08:17 AM
Do you have any idea at all why the Dow turned around? Or are you just hoping one equates to the other?

Oh I absolutely know it's not a sure thing that the economy will follow the Dow. Everything needs to be in context.

But some awfully friendly patterns are building up here. Let's not completely ignore the obvious.

petegz28
10-30-2009, 08:18 AM
Oh I absolutely know it's not a sure thing that the economy will follow the Dow. Everything needs to be in context.

But some awfully friendly patterns are building up here. Let's not completely ignore the obvious.

Second time, do you have any idea why the Dow and Market have risen?

patteeu
10-30-2009, 08:18 AM
I have not read anything other than the OP here, so I will say without a doubt the short-term job creation here has been awful.

But it's not an empty well. Not only has the Dow turned around -- the Dow usually being way, way out in front on how the economy will eventually perform -- and the GDP making the single biggest jump this past quarter than we've ever seen under Clinton, Reagan, or either Bush, and it's not hard to see how jobs will probably eventually come with the improvement (as long as it's sustained). The stimulus (as well as TARP) was a part of both of these.

Jobs lag behind the economy. It's common knowledge that job loss continues even during the initial recovery of a recession. That's what we're going through right now.

It's common knowledge [that jobs lag behind the economy].

+

Positive change in GDP is greater than ever seen under Clinton, Reagan, or Bush.

Should = better than predicted job growth

But instead we have far worse than predicted job growth. This math doesn't add up. It still looks like a pig behind all that lipstick you're applying.

Direckshun
10-30-2009, 08:21 AM
Second time, do you have any idea why the Dow and Market have risen?

No, Pete. I have no earthly idea why these things happen. I assume God just makes it so.

You've nailed me.

BucEyedPea
10-30-2009, 08:22 AM
GDP includes govt spending. Please factor that in.

petegz28
10-30-2009, 08:23 AM
It's common knowledge [that jobs lag behind the economy].

+

Positive change in GDP is greater than ever seen under Clinton, Reagan, or Bush.

Should = better than predicted job growth

But instead we have far worse than predicted job growth. This math doesn't add up. It still looks like a pig behind all that lipstick you're applying.

Tool won't get it. The market has gone up for a few reasons, unfortunatly the wrong ones...

1. The Leahman collapse was finally absorbed
2. A ****ing SHITLOAD of layoffs
3. A worthless piece of paper we call the Dollar
4. Instanely artificialy low interest rates

And finally...

5. Emotion. The market rebounded some from extremely low level and now money managers are chasing to make their books look good.


Are we in a recovery? Sort of. Is the market started a new bull trend? I think so personally. Is the Fed Gov doing everything they can to make that happen? Quite the opposite.

It is amazing the market has made it to whers it is with the Fed Gov's posture of increased costs on energy and increased tax in the form of mandated health care. Among a few other things.

Direckshun
10-30-2009, 08:23 AM
It's common knowledge [that jobs lag behind the economy].

+

Positive change in GDP is greater than ever seen under Clinton, Reagan, or Bush.

Should = better than predicted job growth

But instead we have far worse than predicted job growth.

Because it doesn't all happen at the same time.

The economy is just now recovering. I won't even say recovering. I'll say "starting to recover."

Direckshun
10-30-2009, 08:25 AM
It is amazing the market has made it to whers it is with the Fed Gov's posture of increased costs on energy and increased tax in the form of mandated health care. Among a few other things.

It *is* amazing, I'll give you that. The government enacts a stimulus bill to help the economy turn its course to the positive, and it's a complete failure!

Except for the fact that the economy is turning its course to the positive. But we're sure that has to do with everything else other than the government's own actions.

petegz28
10-30-2009, 08:28 AM
It *is* amazing, I'll give you that. The government enacts a stimulus bill to help the economy turn its course to the positive, and it's a complete failure!

Except for the fact that the economy is turning its course to the positive. But we're sure that has to do with everything else other than the government's own actions.

That stimulus ain't done shit but make things worse, imo.

Direckshun
10-30-2009, 08:31 AM
That stimulus ain't done shit but make things worse, imo.

You are absolute right.

Except for the fact that things are actually better.

petegz28
10-30-2009, 08:32 AM
You are absolute right.

Except for the fact that things are actually better.

Says who? Oh yea, the executives who got bailed out. Right.

HonestChieffan
10-30-2009, 08:33 AM
It *is* amazing, I'll give you that. The government enacts a stimulus bill to help the economy turn its course to the positive, and it's a complete failure!

Except for the fact that the economy is turning its course to the positive. But we're sure that has to do with everything else other than the government's own actions.

Id be open to seeing the specifics. What money has actually been spent, where, and demostrate on a expenditure by expenditure basis, how that has impacted the recovery in what segment.

If we are to credit this stimulus with the turn around there must be some good solid data and examples of this.

The normal economic cycles of up and down cannot be used as justification, we need to see the demonstrated expence and its direct link to the recovery.

Direckshun
10-30-2009, 08:34 AM
Says who?

You did. You said the economy is getting better.

petegz28
10-30-2009, 08:39 AM
You did. You said the economy is getting better.

No, I said we are in a recovery..sort of.

The economy isn't getting better. The books of companies are looking better cause they cut hundreds of millions of jobs. Sales are not increasing, spending is not increasing for anything that would matter.

Are there signs? Weak ones. Woudl we have recovered quicker without all the bailouts and stimulus crap? Probably, though I agree the pain would have been tough. Quick, but tough.

patteeu
10-30-2009, 08:41 AM
You are absolute right.

Except for the fact that things are actually better.

The Lew Rockwellians of the world were telling us that the economy would have gotten better quicker without the stimulus. Since it didn't, I guess they were right.

patteeu
10-30-2009, 08:42 AM
Because it doesn't all happen at the same time.

The economy is just now recovering. I won't even say recovering. I'll say "starting to recover."

The stimulus bill failed according to the terms defined by the administration. That's what this thread was about and I don't think your hope-filled responses cast any doubt on that at all.

The Mad Crapper
04-01-2010, 01:48 PM
FREMONT, Calif. (AP) - The last car has rolled off the production lines at California's sole auto plant. Workers are trickling out of the New United Motor Manufacturing plant in Fremont as they complete their tasks and the plant readies to shut down.

Nearby, job centers have been set up to help the newly unemployed figure out benefits, retraining and other options.

The plant made Toyota Tacoma trucks and Corolla sedans. The last Tacoma rolled off the assembly lines last week, and Corolla production ended Thursday.

The plant began 25 years ago as a joint venture between Toyota Motor Corp. and General Motors Co. GM pulled out last year, and Toyota later announced it would halt production, eliminating about 4,700 jobs.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9EQEAHG0&show_article=1

King_Chief_Fan
04-01-2010, 02:41 PM
You are absolute right.

Except for the fact that things are actually better.

where do you get this stuff.....I think your handle should be misdireckshun

go bowe
04-01-2010, 03:26 PM
No, no, you've got this backwards. Imagine the magic they would be able to do with say 900 billion. I can't wait to see what they cook up for the 2010 budget.

I'd also like to know out of all these 'jobs' that are going to be created this summer how many of them are long term employment and not just stop gap short term. I mean when you build roads, bridges, and do park improvement the work eventually ends.i dunno...

seems to me that there are enough roads, bridges and parks that need repair or replacement to keep workers busy for years...

The Mad Crapper
04-07-2010, 11:37 AM
More lies and BS from B.O.

When President Barack Obama comes to Charlotte today to tour Celgard, a battery-parts maker that has received $49 million in stimulus money, he's sure to tout how government money will put people to work. He's visiting a company that hasn't yet spent any of its stimulus money, according to federal documents. Celgard wouldn't talk Thursday about its plans or the specifics of its grant. The governor's office has said the money will help create about 300 jobs over the next five years. Nationwide, the federal government says that stimulus spending created up to 2.1 million jobs as of Dec. 31,...

http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/04/02/1559907/jobs-on-obamas-charlotte-agenda.html

Direckshun
04-07-2010, 01:11 PM
I don't think there's any doubt outside of the Hannity bubble that the stimulus package was the tournequet (sp?) this country needed.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_IcTTTYdTZQM/S4nQ-5dHpsI/AAAAAAAAAMs/1IC4wS7NeBU/s400/obama_administration_jobs_chart.gif

This chart hasn't yet been updated to include the 160,000 jobs added this month.

patteeu
04-07-2010, 01:41 PM
I don't think there's any doubt outside of the Hannity bubble that the stimulus package was the tournequet (sp?) this country needed.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_IcTTTYdTZQM/S4nQ-5dHpsI/AAAAAAAAAMs/1IC4wS7NeBU/s400/obama_administration_jobs_chart.gif

This chart hasn't yet been updated to include the 160,000 jobs added this month.

LOL I think quite a bit of doubt about that remains in all objective quarters. All that chart tells me is that we're running out of jobs to lose. The first jobs lost (the ones on the left of that graph) tended to include a higher degree of dead wood while the jobs lost on the right side of the graph are where employers are cutting to the bone.

The Mad Crapper
04-08-2010, 11:05 AM
I don't think there's any doubt outside of the Hannity bubble that the stimulus package was the tournequet (sp?) this country needed.

You saw the list of things the stimulus money was spent on, right?