Brown: Stimulus Did Not Create One Job

[potter 58]

Now that is a pretty stupid statement coming from the gop's newest great hope! Not one Scott, really? Prove it

 

[beowolfe]

70% of the stimulus cash here in Massachusetts went to state employee salaries. It was a government bailout bill. Once the cash gone, it's gone. Government will be forced to reform, downsize, and cut costs which is what the entire world knew this government needed to do.

Not one job, enough of Obama's fuzzy math.

We, the people, aren't buying it any more!

Stimulus saves hacks - BostonHerald.com

Blame your governor and your federal representatives. They are the one who came up with the plan to spend your state's share of the stimulus money.

Also, accoring to Stimulus Watch, you're not correct.

http://www.stimuluswatch.org/project/by_state/MA

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

since government "created" jobs do not help the economy or produce real wealth

Not necessarily true. Depending on the job, real wealth can be created, just as in the private sector. There is no difference in that regard between a manufacturer paid directly by his boss or through State channels.

Removing money from the market through taxes does not necessarily destroy jobs, if the wealth was not being used to create wealth in the first place (eg: money taken from Bill Gates' bank account, where it sits and does nothing).

If the State fills a role that private enterprise was not fulfilling, or creates a job that the private market had not, then jobs are created, so long as the job creates some wealth for which their is a market.

While government intervention usually has a negative impact, it does not necessarily have to.

If the market didn't create a job then there's a reason for that, and government "creating" that job will destroy other jobs and misallocate resources.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

How bout we drastically cut federal spending? That'd allow us to lower taxes, since the Fed would need less money to fuck off, thereby leaving more money in peoples' pockets. The result would be a lasting 'infusion' of wealth into the market, with which people could purchase what they desired. Unlike the stimulus checks, which were hoarded because people knew it was a one-time deal (like finding $20 one day versus knowing you earn $20 more everyday at work), this increased take-home pay would enable consumers to patronize businesses, thereby stimulating the demand-side of the economy.

 

[uscitizen]

Brown baggers... Sheesh.
Faith in politicians is pathetic.

Faith in new blood is not a bad thing my friend.

That is what got Obama elected.

Faith in any politician is pathetic.

Now attempting to pick one that is less pathetic than the rest is were we are.
For the mostly non partisan ones anyway.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

since government "created" jobs do not help the economy or produce real wealth

Not necessarily true. Depending on the job, real wealth can be created, just as in the private sector. There is no difference in that regard between a manufacturer paid directly by his boss or through State channels.

Removing money from the market through taxes does not necessarily destroy jobs, if the wealth was not being used to create wealth in the first place (eg: money taken from Bill Gates' bank account, where it sits and does nothing).

If the State fills a role that private enterprise was not fulfilling, or creates a job that the private market had not, then jobs are created, so long as the job creates some wealth for which their is a market.

While government intervention usually has a negative impact, it does not necessarily have to.

If the market didn't create a job then there's a reason for that, and government "creating" that job will destroy other jobs and misallocate resources.

Not necessarily. The 'free market' as the term is oft used might not create create a market for a new Humvee, a new rocket, or new body armour, but the State can create the market by announcing its need for the military. The military also pays soldiers, drivers, and others within its ranks, thereby creating jobs, but careers, as well as a market for good that would not otherwise be in demand in significant quantity.

 

[beowolfe]

since government "created" jobs do not help the economy or produce real wealth

Not necessarily true. Depending on the job, real wealth can be created, just as in the private sector. There is no difference in that regard between a manufacturer paid directly by his boss or through State channels.

Removing money from the market through taxes does not necessarily destroy jobs, if the wealth was not being used to create wealth in the first place (eg: money taken from Bill Gates' bank account, where it sits and does nothing).

If the State fills a role that private enterprise was not fulfilling, or creates a job that the private market had not, then jobs are created, so long as the job creates some wealth for which their is a market.

While government intervention usually has a negative impact, it does not necessarily have to.

If the market didn't create a job then there's a reason for that, and government "creating" that job will destroy other jobs and misallocate resources.

You should bring your thinking into the 21st century. You're operating on a premise that was negated by free trade agreements.

 

[rightwinger]

The last stimulus bill didn't create one new job," Brown said at his first official Senate press conference.

Asked again if he really meant President Obama's $787 billion stimulus "didn't create one new job," Brown plowed ahead.

"That's correct. In Massachusetts, it hasn't created one new job and throughout the country, as well, It may have retained some, but it hasn't created any new jobs."

To put it mildly, the White House begs to differ.

"The Recovery Act has saved or created 53,000 total jobs in Massachusetts," said Jay Carney, spokesman for Vice President Joe Biden, citing statistics from the White House Council on Economic Advisers (CEA). " Moreover, Massachusetts state and local governments, businesses and community organizations have already reported directly funding over 9,000 jobs in the last year."

Carney said the 9,000 jobs represent only "a portion of the total $8.4 billion" in stimulus funds sent to Massachusetts.

Biden overseas stimulus funds and is the law's most ardent and voluble defender. It's perhaps an unintended tribute to the fractious ways of the Capitol -- and the bruising economic debates the recession has inspired -- that Brown and Biden found themselves sparring moments after Biden presided at Brown's swearing in.

Carney suggested Brown take note of "serious economists of all political points of view" whom he said "estimate" stimulus dollars have "created or saved between 1.5 and 2.4 million jobs across America."

 

[☭proletarian☭]

What does that mean , exactly, 'saved or created'?

How, after the first month or so, do they estimate what job losses would have been if the stimulus hadn't been passed?

anyone?

 

[NYcarbineer]

70% of the stimulus cash here in Massachusetts went to state employee salaries. It was a government bailout bill. Once the cash gone, it's gone. Government will be forced to reform, downsize, and cut costs which is what the entire world knew this government needed to do.

Not one job, enough of Obama's fuzzy math.

We, the people, aren't buying it any more!

Stimulus saves hacks - BostonHerald.com

The last line of your link:

An additional 337 private-sector jobs were created by the department to work at career centers that help the unemployed

I doubt it was your intent, but you singlehandedly proved Brown is full of it.

 

[Titanic Sailor]

337 jobs compared to millions unemployed. No Child Left Behind victim much?????????

 

[Titanic Sailor]

For all the folks stuck in denial, perhaps this will cheer you up:

Scott Brown's Daughter with the Boston Pops

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1U5SGSr6kXY]YouTube - Ayla Brown - "The Star-Spangled Banner" with the Boston Pops[/ame]

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

The health care debacle, that was sure to be rammed down our throats, is now history.

No, it is not.

Far from it.

Correct. DO NOT FALL ASLEEP PEOPLE!!!!!

 

[Xenophon]

I know some of you don't trust or understand who this guy Brown is yet. He is one of us. He is the real deal, so get ready. This guy is aimed squarely at Obama.

Since his election, the NYC terror trials did a 180 and will be changing the venue. The health care debacle, that was sure to be rammed down our throats, is now history.

I know, we've all suffered disappointment before in politicians. Let's all stand back and watch this guy. From poverty to the voice of the people in Massachusetts, good man. I hope you get the opportunity to learn more from him.

It did create one job, the guy who keeps making up the number the White House quotes.

Back in the real world, it was just another trillion down the scuppers.

 

[NYcarbineer]

337 jobs compared to millions unemployed. No Child Left Behind victim much?????????

That was just one program in one state.

btw, I know what Senator Brown meant.

 

[Titanic Sailor]

the scuppers....

Very good man, very good.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Recipient Reported Data Map

 

[Titanic Sailor]

I unfortunately took the time to see the articles assertions are correct, went to the state to pay bills, thanks:

Top Recipients Amount
MASSACHUSETTS, COMMONWEALTH OF $385,025,995
MASSACHUSETTS WATER POLLUTION ABATEMENT TRUST $352,179,269
MASSACHUSETTS BAY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY $328,636,172
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION MASSACHUSETTS $295,056,689
UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS $222,671,430

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

For all the people trying to shove it up Scott Browns butt on his comment about "No New Jobs" please do me one favor.

Point to the month, since obama took office, that we have had job growth. Show me which month we had more jobs created than we had jobs lost.

If you cant then you should think about what your saying.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Not necessarily true. Depending on the job, real wealth can be created, just as in the private sector. There is no difference in that regard between a manufacturer paid directly by his boss or through State channels.

Removing money from the market through taxes does not necessarily destroy jobs, if the wealth was not being used to create wealth in the first place (eg: money taken from Bill Gates' bank account, where it sits and does nothing).

If the State fills a role that private enterprise was not fulfilling, or creates a job that the private market had not, then jobs are created, so long as the job creates some wealth for which their is a market.

While government intervention usually has a negative impact, it does not necessarily have to.

If the market didn't create a job then there's a reason for that, and government "creating" that job will destroy other jobs and misallocate resources.

Not necessarily. The 'free market' as the term is oft used might not create create a market for a new Humvee, a new rocket, or new body armour, but the State can create the market by announcing its need for the military. The military also pays soldiers, drivers, and others within its ranks, thereby creating jobs, but careers, as well as a market for good that would not otherwise be in demand in significant quantity.

None of which is beneficial to the private market. What do private citizens need rockets, body armor, or a humvee for? There is no market for it, therefore it doesn't help the economy.