What? Obama admits government “can’t create jobs”

[MaggieMae]

To actually address the OP. The stimulus was not meant to create jobs. It was nothing more than a grab bag for liberal spending.

Oh yes, thank you for that brilliant insight, Ollie.

Except that it did create jobs, to the tune of 1.4-3.3 Million.

Did the Stimulus Create Jobs? | FactCheck.org

Remember that job creation was not the sole purpose of the stimulus, either. Stabilizing an economy in utter free-fall wasn't a bad fringe benefit.

Fact check has been proven to be a vehicle for spreading more lies for the obama agenda. Now that is a fact.

Cons love factcheck.org when they produce favorable material for their own. Surprise surprise. When a fact-checking organization also publishes its sources, it's not a lie. Duh...

 

[MaggieMae]

Fact check has been proven to be a vehicle for spreading more lies for the obama agenda. Now that is a fact.

Are you actually retarded? Factcheck is not partisan. It's no easier on Democrats than it is on Republicans. It may seem that way to you sometimes, because frankly, the Republicans are more full of shit. They don't base their campaigning on logic, they base it on emotion.

I've heard the same thing about Politifact, "Durrr it's liberal biased." No it's not, they're dedicated to checking the factual nature of statements, and nothing more. If a Democrat is a liar, they get called out just as fast as a Republican.

Is FactCheck.org a non-partisan, non-biased truth-seeking entity?

Google "factcheck bias" and you will find an awful lot of nothing. Essentially you will get links to blogs with reader comments that argue back and forth on the issue of bias behind factcheck.org. Very few actually have links that go anywhere and factcheck.org works very hard to promote itself as non-partisan. Through carefull wordsmithing, factcheck.org avoids projecting bias in individual articles. More telling, perhaps, is the number and kind of articles they do publish. They have an awful lot of articles defending president Obama and their criticisms of him are with regards to mostly inconsequential issues.

What you will find on factcheck.org is a statement in the header: A Project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center. Who is the Annenberg Public Policy Center? Funding for APPC comes through an endowment established by the Annenberg Foundation.

The director is Kathleen Hall Jamison. Not much is said about her personal views on the APPC website, but she did coauthor a book called The Obama Victory: How Media, Money, and Messages Shaped the 2008 Election and a previous book written to criticize Rush Limbaugh.
Interestingly, another project of the Annenberg Foundation was the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. The first Chairman of the Board for the Chicago Annenberg Challenge was none other than our President, Barack Obama. When I googled "Obama Annenberg," I found this article: Obama's connections to factcheck.org exposed by Texas Darlin.

Back during the campaign days when questions were asked about the Obama-Ayers connection (Ayers was part of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge) Obama defenders would cite that the Annenberg for whom the foundation was named was conservative and a friend of Reagan. Be that as it may, it appears his foundation has gone the way of supporting some views that are decidedly not in line with Reagan.
But Seriously: Fact Checking Factcheck.org

Hmmm.....very interesting

Ah yes, the repeated ad nauseam right-wing gossip that factcheck.org is tied to the same Annenberg group that promotes higher education and therefore must be biased toward Obama because of his obscure relationship with Bill Ayers. Bullshit. That's such a stretch, and I'm surprised you believe it. (Others not as smart, of course would.) Annenberg has dozens of projects, factcheck.org being only one.

Annenberg Foundation | Advancing the Public Well-Being Through Improved Communication

You can also Google these:

Related Searches for Annenberg group
Annenberg Foundation
Annenberg Family
Annenberg Penn
Annenberg Space for Photograp…
Annenberg FACT CHECK
Annenberg Video
Annenberg Psychology
Leonore Annenberg

 

[MaggieMae]

Are you actually retarded? Factcheck is not partisan. It's no easier on Democrats than it is on Republicans. It may seem that way to you sometimes, because frankly, the Republicans are more full of shit. They don't base their campaigning on logic, they base it on emotion.

I've heard the same thing about Politifact, "Durrr it's liberal biased." No it's not, they're dedicated to checking the factual nature of statements, and nothing more. If a Democrat is a liar, they get called out just as fast as a Republican.

Is FactCheck.org a non-partisan, non-biased truth-seeking entity?

Google "factcheck bias" and you will find an awful lot of nothing. Essentially you will get links to blogs with reader comments that argue back and forth on the issue of bias behind factcheck.org. Very few actually have links that go anywhere and factcheck.org works very hard to promote itself as non-partisan. Through carefull wordsmithing, factcheck.org avoids projecting bias in individual articles. More telling, perhaps, is the number and kind of articles they do publish. They have an awful lot of articles defending president Obama and their criticisms of him are with regards to mostly inconsequential issues.

What you will find on factcheck.org is a statement in the header: A Project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center. Who is the Annenberg Public Policy Center? Funding for APPC comes through an endowment established by the Annenberg Foundation.

The director is Kathleen Hall Jamison. Not much is said about her personal views on the APPC website, but she did coauthor a book called The Obama Victory: How Media, Money, and Messages Shaped the 2008 Election and a previous book written to criticize Rush Limbaugh.
Interestingly, another project of the Annenberg Foundation was the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. The first Chairman of the Board for the Chicago Annenberg Challenge was none other than our President, Barack Obama. When I googled "Obama Annenberg," I found this article: Obama's connections to factcheck.org exposed by Texas Darlin.

Back during the campaign days when questions were asked about the Obama-Ayers connection (Ayers was part of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge) Obama defenders would cite that the Annenberg for whom the foundation was named was conservative and a friend of Reagan. Be that as it may, it appears his foundation has gone the way of supporting some views that are decidedly not in line with Reagan.
But Seriously: Fact Checking Factcheck.org

Hmmm.....very interesting

Can you please direct me to any media outlet that's not been accused of bias?

The point remains the same... Bias or not, on this particular subject, Factcheck depended upon the CBO for its assessment of Republican statements re: the Stimulus, and found the statements to be factually false.

Wait, is the CBO biased now too?

Is there anything that supports the President or the Democratic agenda that you do not categorize as biased?

The cons first thought so when its first numbers were released on projected costs for health care reform which showed that it would reduce the deficit over time. Then when the CBO came out with revised figures showing it would not, the cons LOVED the CBO.

Don't you get it by now?

 

[MaggieMae]

How good is Obama at creating jobs? Well, the Chief of Staff is now unemployed.

It seems many on the USS obama are jumping ship. I wonder has this ever happen with a sitting president at the mid term election?

Now I know you were born yesterday.

 

[MaggieMae]

NO YOU DON'T I WILL NOT ALLOW YOU TO PLAY WORD GAMES WITH ME
Who was the republican that said the stimulus created jobs? If you show me who it is I will show you a rino.

OMG, dimwit.

He said - TWICE -

Republicans who said the stimulus CREATED NO JOBS lied.

So, when a Republican says "The stimulus DID NOT create any jobs," factcheck has determined that Republican to be a liar. Do you agree? Are factcheck, politifact, and CBO all left-wing biased?

How deep does this conspiracy go? Even Forbes doesn't deny that the stimulus created *ANY* jobs. Have "They" gotten to Forbes, too?

stupid bitch I askedhim twice to identify the republican in question and I will show him a rino.

So in other words, it wouldn't matter which Republican. Got it.

 

[MaggieMae]

NO YOU DON'T I WILL NOT ALLOW YOU TO PLAY WORD GAMES WITH ME
Who was the republican that said the stimulus created jobs? If you show me who it is I will show you a rino.

No need to yell, just because you're losing the debate. Just focus on the question. The question is, stated differently, whether factcheck is right or factcheck is wrong.

Did the Stimulus Create Jobs? | FactCheck.org

Analysis

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, more commonly known as the stimulus bill, has been featured in more than 130 TV ads this year, according to a database maintained by Kantar Media’s Campaign Media Analysis Group. In many of those ads, Republicans claim the bill has "failed" (a matter of opinion) or state (correctly) that unemployment has gone up since President Barack Obama signed the bill into law on Feb. 17, 2009. The national unemployment rate was 8.2 percent in February 2009, and it now stands at 9.6 percent, having peaked at 10.1 percent in October 2009.

But it’s just false to say that the stimulus created "no jobs" or "failed to save and create jobs" or "has done nothing to reduce unemployment" – or similar claims that the stimulus did not produce any jobs.

That, plus the rest in the link, is factcheck's position.

Is factcheck right or wrong? Are those Republicans lying when they say the stimulus did not create any jobs, or not?

How many jobs were saved and how much did it cost to save said jobs?

Apparently you never even bother to read linked material, so it's truly counterproductive to argue with someone like you. You come here to screech your biased, unenlighted opinion, period. Again, you and those like you are the type who give Southerners a bad reputation as being uneducated and thereby ignorant.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

No need to yell, just because you're losing the debate. Just focus on the question. The question is, stated differently, whether factcheck is right or factcheck is wrong.

Did the Stimulus Create Jobs? | FactCheck.org

Analysis

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, more commonly known as the stimulus bill, has been featured in more than 130 TV ads this year, according to a database maintained by Kantar Media’s Campaign Media Analysis Group. In many of those ads, Republicans claim the bill has "failed" (a matter of opinion) or state (correctly) that unemployment has gone up since President Barack Obama signed the bill into law on Feb. 17, 2009. The national unemployment rate was 8.2 percent in February 2009, and it now stands at 9.6 percent, having peaked at 10.1 percent in October 2009.

But it’s just false to say that the stimulus created "no jobs" or "failed to save and create jobs" or "has done nothing to reduce unemployment" – or similar claims that the stimulus did not produce any jobs.

That, plus the rest in the link, is factcheck's position.

Is factcheck right or wrong? Are those Republicans lying when they say the stimulus did not create any jobs, or not?

How many jobs were saved and how much did it cost to save said jobs?

Apparently you never even bother to read linked material, so it's truly counterproductive to argue with someone like you. You come here to screech your biased, unenlighted opinion, period. Again, you and those like you are the type who give Southerners a bad reputation as being uneducated and thereby ignorant.

Hes the one thats saying jobs were saved I want him to show how many job what jobs and at what cost were these jobs saved. I want to hear it from him so he can't say that isn't true when I bust him a new one.

 

[USAMomma]

We had a neighbor here who used to work as a DBA and software developer. Well, his job along with many others that had done the same kind of work went "overseas"; or H1B's "cheaper laborers from India" were brought in. Now he has been looking for replacement work in same field over a year. He works two jobs, but only part time and not nearly enough to cover his mortgage, health insurance for he, his wife and their child. His wife went to get a job and has two part time jobs as well. She also used to work in IT but alas, the jobs seem to be offshore or the cheaper laborers are being brought in. At least she has parents that can help with babysitting when she gets called into work. Both of their jobs I would not count as jobs, they are only part time and not nearly enough to cover expenses and they do not drive big fancy expensive cars, they do not go out and shop and buy expensive clothes, they do not wine, dine or entertain they live very frugally and not with credit either.

Jobs I would consider are those that can pay one's day to day expenses, i.e., gas for vehicle, rent or mortgage, insurance (both health and vehicle (many places if you rent require renters ins.), utilities, etc.). What this couple has is what I used to get while in high school and certainly not enough to take care of real life expenses.

Sure some people may say we need to "lower our standards since we have been living "to high on the hog" so to say. Sure there have been a few I know of who have lived way beyond their means, living on credit, second and third mortgages on their homes so they can live like Hollyweird stars buying expensive clothes and high end vehicles. But most people I know including my family have lived very frugally, only buying necessities and not expensive clothing even making my own and not going on those expensive vacations, not even to a movie or out to dinner preferring home cooked meals. Cars we used to buy are not top of the line but medium good enough to get us from point a to point b with fair gas mileage. Our car is paid for, we no longer use credit either, same as for most of our family and circle of friends.

Most in the "third world" live 10, 15 or more to single and two room apartments, or they get all of their family and extended family into a home where there will be 20 or more in one house. Some of the people overseas have apartments or homes with dirt floors with wall to wall bunk beds. They are the ones taking many of the high tech jobs. They can afford to work so cheaply. Seems many think this is the standards to which we should lower ourselves to.

The fact of the matter is, many companies are claiming great profits; the CEO's and shareholders giving themselves pay raises and big bonuses and retirement packages while their employees and former employees are being raped of their 401k to pay for that.

It is the corporations that I blame for our state of economic conditions. They bribe the politicians and tell the politicians they cannot find quality local workers right here in America so have to go overseas (I mentioned this before). The fact of the matter is, they cannot find anyone who can afford to work at such cheap rates due to the costs here in America: taxes, health insurance, rents, mortgages, utility bills, etc....

 

[bigrebnc1775]

How good is Obama at creating jobs? Well, the Chief of Staff is now unemployed.

It seems many on the USS obama are jumping ship. I wonder has this ever happen with a sitting president at the mid term election?

Now I know you were born yesterday.

Now I know you are stupid. instead of making a stupid comment care to give some facts against my comment? other than your opinion do you have anything worthy to contribute?

 

[MaggieMae]

We all know that the so called stimulus created or saved some jobs.

We all also know that it is a gross failure.

We also know that it is impossible to place a number on any saved jobs. And very difficult to say just how many jobs, and at what cost, it created.

We do know that much of the money was used for part time or limited time jobs that the powers that be counted as created.

Republicans continue to call it a boondoggle because the stimulus failed to immediately reduce the unemployment situation, and look no further than that simplistic notion. That simply tells me that those people who believe all the naysayers can't be bothered seeking out more than their own favorite website/cable news non-stop criticism.

For anyone really interested, an extensive article in Time provides the history, as well as the results to date and future projections for how jobs and employment overall is a changing face in America, because it HAS TO BE CHANGED. We can no longer rely on manufacturing and service jobs to support said manufacturing as it existed prior to this economic downfall.

Recovery Act: How Obama's Stimulus Is Changing America - TIME

 

[saveliberty]

How good is Obama at creating jobs? Well, the Chief of Staff is now unemployed.

It seems many on the USS obama are jumping ship. I wonder has this ever happen with a sitting president at the mid term election?

Mark McLarty was in only the first two years with Clinton. The same for a Donald Rumsfeld and President Ford.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

How good is Obama at creating jobs? Well, the Chief of Staff is now unemployed.

It seems many on the USS obama are jumping ship. I wonder has this ever happen with a sitting president at the mid term election?

Mark McLarty was in only the first two years with Clinton. The same for a Donald Rumsfeld and President Ford.

Aren't there more leaving this midterm from this administration? I had heard gibbs was leaving also and a couple of others

 

[MaggieMae]

It seems many on the USS obama are jumping ship. I wonder has this ever happen with a sitting president at the mid term election?

Now I know you were born yesterday.

Now I know you are stupid. instead of making a stupid comment care to give some facts against my comment? other than your opinion do you have anything worthy to contribute?

Probably the most memorable are the 3 turnovers as Treasury Secretary in the Bush43 administration, with Paul O'Neill, the first, lasting less than a year because he pointed out that the Iraq war would cost far more than estimated. Ari Fleischer didn't last a full two years as Bush's press secretary, replaced by Scott McClellan, replaced by Tony Snow eventually, and when he passed away, the deputy press secretary, Dana Perrino, finished out the term. Another one who didn't last long was Mitch Daniels at OMB. He is now seen as a 2012 presidential possibility.

However, many cabinet appointees had promised to at least fulfill one term, and immediately left thereafter: Colin Powell is a name you're probably most familiar with.

You can easily Google all this information, which only further proves that you are incapable of doing your own fact-checking, as well as refusing to believe facts posted here for your benefit.

I'll let you peruse the Reagan cabinet yourself, where there were also several changes two years in, Alexander Haig being the most memorable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_Ronald_Reagan#Administration_and_Cabinet

So the answer is no, it is not unusual at all for there to be staff changes.

 

[saveliberty]

It seems many on the USS obama are jumping ship. I wonder has this ever happen with a sitting president at the mid term election?

Mark McLarty was in only the first two years with Clinton. The same for a Donald Rumsfeld and President Ford.

Aren't there more leaving this midterm from this administration? I had heard gibbs was leaving also and a couple of others

Sorry I made the original statement that was quoted and it was Chief of Staff specific. For Obama to recreate his Presidency, he will need new players. Pretty typical of midterms where the White House is under heavy fire I would guess.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Mark McLarty was in only the first two years with Clinton. The same for a Donald Rumsfeld and President Ford.

Aren't there more leaving this midterm from this administration? I had heard gibbs was leaving also and a couple of others

Sorry I made the original statement that was quoted and it was Chief of Staff specific. For Obama to recreate his Presidency, he will need new players. Pretty typical of midterms where the White House is under heavy fire I would guess.

I'm sure you're correct, it looks like if this was a successful administration most would hang on as long as they could.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Now I know you were born yesterday.

Now I know you are stupid. instead of making a stupid comment care to give some facts against my comment? other than your opinion do you have anything worthy to contribute?

Probably the most memorable are the 3 turnovers as Treasury Secretary in the Bush43 administration, with Paul O'Neill, the first, lasting less than a year because he pointed out that the Iraq war would cost far more than estimated. Ari Fleischer didn't last a full two years as Bush's press secretary, replaced by Scott McClellan, replaced by Tony Snow eventually, and when he passed away, the deputy press secretary, Dana Perrino, finished out the term. Another one who didn't last long was Mitch Daniels at OMB. He is now seen as a 2012 presidential possibility.

However, many cabinet appointees had promised to at least fulfill one term, and immediately left thereafter: Colin Powell is a name you're probably most familiar with.

You can easily Google all this information, which only further proves that you are incapable of doing your own fact-checking, as well as refusing to believe facts posted here for your benefit.

I'll let you peruse the Reagan cabinet yourself, where there were also several changes two years in, Alexander Haig being the most memorable.

Presidency of Ronald Reagan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So the answer is no, it is not unusual at all for there to be staff changes.

I have no doubt you are correct. It just that this shinning political star was shinning high in the sky then came the fall. Kind of shocking.

 

[MaggieMae]

It seems many on the USS obama are jumping ship. I wonder has this ever happen with a sitting president at the mid term election?

Mark McLarty was in only the first two years with Clinton. The same for a Donald Rumsfeld and President Ford.

Aren't there more leaving this midterm from this administration? I had heard gibbs was leaving also and a couple of others

Gibbs eyed for DNC chairman - Mike Allen and Josh Gerstein - POLITICO.com

Gibbs would be much more suited to that position than press secretary, where he (and any PS) has had to take some hard knocks. As for his replacement? I think someone respecting among the entire media community is a must. Tony Snow proved that the job can be fulfilled better by someone independent of a resume containing prior "government-related" credentials. Tony was a fantastic communicator, a friend to all, yet remained true to the job requirements of relaying the position of the president. As an aside, Fox News was never the same once he left.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Mark McLarty was in only the first two years with Clinton. The same for a Donald Rumsfeld and President Ford.

Aren't there more leaving this midterm from this administration? I had heard gibbs was leaving also and a couple of others

Gibbs eyed for DNC chairman - Mike Allen and Josh Gerstein - POLITICO.com

Gibbs would be much more suited to that position than press secretary, where he (and any PS) has had to take some hard knocks. As for his replacement? I think someone respecting among the entire media community is a must. Tony Snow proved that the job can be fulfilled better by someone independent of a resume containing prior "government-related" credentials. Tony was a fantastic communicator, a friend to all, yet remained true to the job requirements of relaying the position of the president. As an aside, Fox News was never the same once he left.

I could take a stab at obama but I won't maybe his next appointments will advise the president to listen to the people of America.

 

[MaggieMae]

Now I know you are stupid. instead of making a stupid comment care to give some facts against my comment? other than your opinion do you have anything worthy to contribute?

Probably the most memorable are the 3 turnovers as Treasury Secretary in the Bush43 administration, with Paul O'Neill, the first, lasting less than a year because he pointed out that the Iraq war would cost far more than estimated. Ari Fleischer didn't last a full two years as Bush's press secretary, replaced by Scott McClellan, replaced by Tony Snow eventually, and when he passed away, the deputy press secretary, Dana Perrino, finished out the term. Another one who didn't last long was Mitch Daniels at OMB. He is now seen as a 2012 presidential possibility.

However, many cabinet appointees had promised to at least fulfill one term, and immediately left thereafter: Colin Powell is a name you're probably most familiar with.

You can easily Google all this information, which only further proves that you are incapable of doing your own fact-checking, as well as refusing to believe facts posted here for your benefit.

I'll let you peruse the Reagan cabinet yourself, where there were also several changes two years in, Alexander Haig being the most memorable.

Presidency of Ronald Reagan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So the answer is no, it is not unusual at all for there to be staff changes.

I have no doubt you are correct. It just that this shinning political star was shinning high in the sky then came the fall. Kind of shocking.

Who? Rahm? A lot of people didn't like him. AT ALL, and I'm sure he (and Obama) felt the heat after awhile. The Chief of Staff is supposed to be the liaison between the legislature and the executive branch. He isn't supposed to piss off everybody. I knew from the getgo that he was the wrong guy (and I've said that on this board, several times). Rahm was fine as long as his job was restricted to ankle-biting only in the House, but the Senate is another matter.

 

[MaggieMae]

Aren't there more leaving this midterm from this administration? I had heard gibbs was leaving also and a couple of others

Gibbs eyed for DNC chairman - Mike Allen and Josh Gerstein - POLITICO.com

Gibbs would be much more suited to that position than press secretary, where he (and any PS) has had to take some hard knocks. As for his replacement? I think someone respecting among the entire media community is a must. Tony Snow proved that the job can be fulfilled better by someone independent of a resume containing prior "government-related" credentials. Tony was a fantastic communicator, a friend to all, yet remained true to the job requirements of relaying the position of the president. As an aside, Fox News was never the same once he left.

I could take a stab at obama but I won't maybe his next appointments will advise the president to listen to the people of America.

Why do you think he's now being accused of being insulting? It's because he HAS been listening to the people of America, and his frustration is showing because THEY have not been "listening to" HIM.