Brown: Stimulus Did Not Create One Job

[SwingVoter]

You are welcome to present data that shows no jobs were created.

the jobs report came out yesterday, you're telling me you'll sit here like a sheep and present Robert Gibbs' spin on jobs, but don't bother to look at the Dept of Labor's news releases which are all over the web?

here's a link, Employment Situation Summary

whether you're Dem or GOP, you look like a fool for trying to present the administration's spin as legitimate data

 

[rightwinger]

You are welcome to present data that shows no jobs were created.

the jobs report came out yesterday, you're telling me you'll sit here like a sheep and present Robert Gibbs' spin on jobs, but don't bother to look at the Dept of Labor's news releases which are all over the web?

here's a link, Employment Situation Summary

whether you're Dem or GOP, you look like a fool for trying to present the administration's spin as legitimate data

Nice try at diversion..

Show me where NO jobs were created by the stimulus package. Until then, I will accept the Governments figures

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Everything I'm saying ties back to the same point. Government spending doesn't help the economy in any way shape or form,

The military has never benefited the people it was defending?

Not economically.

 

[Modbert]

Not economically.

Tell that to the thousands if not millions of people who have jobs in various industries due to the military.

Never mind the million+ people who have a job defending this country.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Everything I'm saying ties back to the same point. Government spending doesn't help the economy in any way shape or form,

The military has never benefited the people it was defending?

Not economically.

So noone who works at Boeing, Colt, or any other company that makes materials for the military takes a check home, goes to the grocery store or a restaurant, and buys food?

 

[LilOlLady]

Economic stimulus has created or saved nearly 2 million jobs,
White House says
By Alec MacGillis
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, January 13, 2010

The $787 billion economic stimulus package has created or saved between 1.7 million and 2 million jobs, but its impact on the economy ebbed slightly in the final quarter of 2009 compared with prior months, the White House said Tuesday night.

Releasing the administration's second quarterly report to Congress on the stimulus's impact, Christina Romer, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, said a third of the tax cuts and spending in the package is out the door. Her office estimates that the stimulus added between 1.5 and 3 percentage points to the growth in gross domestic product in the final quarter of 2009. That estimate, which is in line with other analyses, is lower than her office's estimate of stimulus-related impact in the third quarter, between 3 and 4 percentage points.

Administration officials said often last year that the stimulus's impact would be felt more over time as spending ramped up, but Romer said in a conference call with reporters that the drop-off in GDP impact was not unexpected. The biggest jolt to the GDP came with the first big surge of spending over the summer, she said, and job creation is now following.

"The most important bottom line is to say that close to 2 million jobs have been created or saved by the close of 2009, a truly stunning . . . effect of the act," she said. Still, she added, there is a need for additional spending to spur job creation, as President Obama has called for.

Congressional Republicans have questioned the administration's claims about the stimulus's impact, pointing to the 10 percent unemployment rate nationwide. Romer's new figures are based on macroeconomic estimates, not reports filed by stimulus funding recipients, the next round of which is due later this month.

Separately, the White House has announced a change in the way those reports tally jobs, a response to critics that could make the reports more reliable but make it more difficult to gauge the stimulus's impact over time.

For months, economists and government watchdogs have warned that the job-creation reports should be taken with a heavy grain of salt. The administration deserves praise, they say, for trying to provide transparency in how the $787 billion package is being spent -- whom the money is going to, and for what purpose -- but trying to count the number of jobs created or saved may have been a fool's errand that needlessly undermined the credibility of the overall reporting effort.

This has proven especially true when it comes to "saved" jobs, which the administration says count as much as new jobs, since both keep people off the unemployment rolls. Recipients of stimulus money have used wildly different standards to estimate how many employees would have been laid off if not for the funding -- some have reported every job in their business or agency as "saved," while others have reported zero jobs "saved," even after receiving very large contracts.

The job figures have other shortcomings. Since reporting is required only of the top two layers of funding recipients, the data do not capture jobs created further down the line of suppliers or subcontractors. And stimulus recipients have taken different approaches to counting jobs that are created or saved on a part-time or temporary basis.

To address those concerns, the Office of Management and Budget recently issued new rules for reporting job numbers, aimed at ensuring more consistency. Most notably, the rules instruct recipients unsure how to count "saved" jobs to simply estimate how many employees in a given quarter were working on projects paid for by stimulus dollars, regardless of whether they would have been laid off otherwise.

But there is a downside: The shift in rules means that the numbers reported for the last quarter of 2009 and for the remainder of the stimulus cannot be compared with the job numbers from earlier in 2009. Going forward, recipients will no longer be expected to report a total count of jobs created or saved over time, but simply how many jobs were created or saved in a given quarter.

John Irons of the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute called the new rules a "huge improvement," saying that greater consistency among recipients is more important than having a cumulative jobs count. Even under the old rules, such a tally was going to be unreliable, he said, given the difficulty of counting jobs that only last a month or two.

"This is a better way to do it," he said. "You lose consistency between [the last two quarters] but you gain a whole lot of consistency across agencies. . . . It's a cleaner way to do things."

"I let no man drag me down so low as to make me hate him."

 

[Modbert]

So noone who works at Boeing, Colt, or any other company that makes materials for the military takes a check home, goes to the grocery store or a restaurant, and buys food?

Exactly. And never mind the actual members of the military who make $$$ both during service and after.

Unless they started to pay them in things like "Marine bucks" and I missed that memo.

 

[Titanic Sailor]

The stimulus create zero new jobs, it was a government bailout EXACTLY as everyone warned. Many state and federal government positions needed to be trimmed down, the porkulus bill ensured government was protected, and you got the 800 billion dollar bill. The White House has already admitted the reporting data was BULLSHIT, as are those folks in the MINORITY who defend the pig bill.

Thanks, the management............

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Not economically.

Tell that to the thousands if not millions of people who have jobs in various industries due to the military.

Never mind the million+ people who have a job defending this country.

You can say the same thing about the government bureaucrats who get paid by the government. It doesn't matter what you do, the public sector doesn't produce wealth because it requires taking money out of the private sector to fund it. We would all be better off economically if we didn't have to fund our armed forces at all and all of the bases around the world. Now you can make the argument that our defense is worth it, and I wouldn't argue the point, but the military is not a wealth producing job.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The military has never benefited the people it was defending?

Not economically.

So noone who works at Boeing, Colt, or any other company that makes materials for the military takes a check home, goes to the grocery store or a restaurant, and buys food?

Again, I suggest you look into the broken window fallacy.

 

[Modbert]

You can say the same thing about the government bureaucrats who get paid by the government. It doesn't matter what you do, the public sector doesn't produce wealth because it requires taking money out of the private sector to fund it. We would all be better off economically if we didn't have to fund our armed forces at all and all of the bases around the world. Now you can make the argument that our defense is worth it, and I wouldn't argue the point, but the military is not a wealth producing job.

I would hope you're not saying we should rely on private industry for our defenses. Because that would just be really stupid.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

You can say the same thing about the government bureaucrats who get paid by the government. It doesn't matter what you do, the public sector doesn't produce wealth because it requires taking money out of the private sector to fund it. We would all be better off economically if we didn't have to fund our armed forces at all and all of the bases around the world. Now you can make the argument that our defense is worth it, and I wouldn't argue the point, but the military is not a wealth producing job.

I would hope you're not saying we should rely on private industry for our defenses. Because that would just be really stupid.

That's not what I'm saying at all, I'm not an anarcho-capitalist. But the nature of economics doesn't change just because it's the military we're discussing. If we didn't have to have a military or anything we'd be much better off economically, that's just a simple fact. Public sector employment doesn't create real wealth, and that includes the military.

 

[Ravi]

You can say the same thing about the government bureaucrats who get paid by the government. It doesn't matter what you do, the public sector doesn't produce wealth because it requires taking money out of the private sector to fund it. We would all be better off economically if we didn't have to fund our armed forces at all and all of the bases around the world. Now you can make the argument that our defense is worth it, and I wouldn't argue the point, but the military is not a wealth producing job.

I would hope you're not saying we should rely on private industry for our defenses. Because that would just be really stupid.

That's not what I'm saying at all, I'm not an anarcho-capitalist. But the nature of economics doesn't change just because it's the military we're discussing. If we didn't have to have a military or anything we'd be much better off economically, that's just a simple fact. Public sector employment doesn't create real wealth, and that includes the military.

If we didn't have a military we'd still belong to England, be speaking German or all be Communist.

You really aren't thinking this through.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I would hope you're not saying we should rely on private industry for our defenses. Because that would just be really stupid.

That's not what I'm saying at all, I'm not an anarcho-capitalist. But the nature of economics doesn't change just because it's the military we're discussing. If we didn't have to have a military or anything we'd be much better off economically, that's just a simple fact. Public sector employment doesn't create real wealth, and that includes the military.

If we didn't have a military we'd still belong to England, be speaking German or all be Communist.

You really aren't thinking this through.

You're missing my actual point.

 

[rightwinger]

I would hope you're not saying we should rely on private industry for our defenses. Because that would just be really stupid.

That's not what I'm saying at all, I'm not an anarcho-capitalist. But the nature of economics doesn't change just because it's the military we're discussing. If we didn't have to have a military or anything we'd be much better off economically, that's just a simple fact. Public sector employment doesn't create real wealth, and that includes the military.

If we didn't have a military we'd still belong to England, be speaking German or all be Communist.

You really aren't thinking this through.

No....we would still belong to the Indians

 

[Modbert]

That's not what I'm saying at all, I'm not an anarcho-capitalist. But the nature of economics doesn't change just because it's the military we're discussing. If we didn't have to have a military or anything we'd be much better off economically, that's just a simple fact. Public sector employment doesn't create real wealth, and that includes the military.

And do tell me where those 1 million plus people are going to go for a job?

 

[Ravi]

That's not what I'm saying at all, I'm not an anarcho-capitalist. But the nature of economics doesn't change just because it's the military we're discussing. If we didn't have to have a military or anything we'd be much better off economically, that's just a simple fact. Public sector employment doesn't create real wealth, and that includes the military.

If we didn't have a military we'd still belong to England, be speaking German or all be Communist.

You really aren't thinking this through.

You're missing my actual point.

Then you aren't explaining it very well.

Here's another goverment program that creates jobs: The IRS. Do away with the IRS and thousands of accountants will be unemployed.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

That's not what I'm saying at all, I'm not an anarcho-capitalist. But the nature of economics doesn't change just because it's the military we're discussing. If we didn't have to have a military or anything we'd be much better off economically, that's just a simple fact. Public sector employment doesn't create real wealth, and that includes the military.

And do tell me where those 1 million plus people are going to go for a job?

We live in a world of unlimited demand. They'd find their niche somewhere.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

If we didn't have a military we'd still belong to England, be speaking German or all be Communist.

You really aren't thinking this through.

You're missing my actual point.

Then you aren't explaining it very well.

Here's another goverment program that creates jobs: The IRS. Do away with the IRS and thousands of accountants will be unemployed.

Perhaps I'm not.

If we lived in a perfect world where we could dismantle the U.S. armed forces, private citizens would be much better off. We could keep more of our money, and the private sector would get an influx of new workers, new ideas, and new innovations from the soldiers who are now able to do something other than work on the taxpayers tab.

Yes, they'd be unemployed, but then they'd be able to move into a more sustainable line of work which is a good thing. Not to mention doing away with the IRS would allow everyone to keep the money they earn. Was it a bad thing when the automobile put all of the people who built buggies out of business? Of course not. It was a great innovation.

 

[LilOlLady]

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.

No one wants this guy but village idiots who like to have their ears tickled and do not have sense enough to search for themselves were the stimulus money is going and how it is working to create jobs and save jobs. Rush, Beck, Hannity, O'Reilly love these guys because they eat up the rheoric the spew them. You can find were the money is going and where it is working simple by searching.

Recovery.gov