The Media Fall for Phony 'Jobs' Claims

[KMAN]

McGurn: The Media Fall for Phony 'Jobs' Claims - WSJ.com

 

[MaggieMae]

A job is a job.

What does Mr. Fatto suggest instead? There's the same ol' same ol' from the WSJ: No offering of alternatives, just worst case scenarios and criticisms. Yawn.....

Bye bye, pubs for at least the next decade.

 

[Oddball]

A job is a job.

Oh, really??

Wasn't it the leftist hero, Bubba Clinton, who disparaged the jobs created during Poppy Bush's term as "burger flipper" jobs??

Yes, I believe it was.

Funny how those "burger flippers" should now fall to their knees in gratitude, now that the douchebag occupying the White House has a (D) by his name.

 

[Annie]

Mustn't forget all the 'measurable' jobs created under GW and the smashing he took regarding them. Here's a typical left wing blog post:

BUSH ECONOMY LIVING OFF LOW WAGE JOBS | TaylorMarsh.com

6.30.04
BUSH ECONOMY
LIVING OFF LOW WAGE JOBS ©
Inflation is Out of the Box

Jobs in lower-wage
industries and regions are growing at a faster pace than higher-wage
jobs, suggesting job growth is less potent for the economy because the
majority of new work isn’t accompanied by fat paychecks. … Nearly 14%
of the jobs added have been temporary workers, who typically are paid
lower wages. Restaurant workers, who also usually are paid lower wages,
have been added, too. Higher-paid computer jobs have been added at a
snail’s pace…

Low-wage Jobs Rise at Faster Pace
Today

The Bush economic numbers mirror W.’s WMD facts on Iraq.
The economy is in “recovery,” according to Bush Republicans.
And if you believe that I’ve got some WMDs around Tikrit and Baghdad
you’d probably like to buy.
If you like working just to get by.
Then George W. Bush is your man.
And if you're a big time investor or CEO…
George W. Bush is your man.
But if you’re one of the 1.5 million jobs created in the last six
months.
You're probably either working in a restaurant or working as a temp.

Hey, but why quibble?
Let me spell it out.
Lower paying positions don't allow for people
to have extra money to spend.
Also, low paying jobs rarely, if ever,
come with benefits like health
insurance.

…both employers
and workers are spending more and more on health insurance every year,
which puts increasing pressure on employers to reduce and require
higher contributions from workers. Case in point is Wal-Mart, the
nations largest private employer, which has dropped retiree coverage,
instituted a six-month waiting period for benefits for new hourly
employees, and declined to pay for flu shots, childhood vaccinations,
and other preventive services. Wal-Mart, which cut health care costs to
around 60 percent of average companies, may well become a model for
other large firms.”
....

 

[MaggieMae]

A job is a job.

Oh, really??

Wasn't it the leftist hero, Bubba Clinton, who disparaged the jobs created during Poppy Bush's term as "burger flipper" jobs??

Yes, I believe it was.

Funny how those "burger flippers" should now fall to their knees in gratitude, now that the douchebag occupying the White House has a (D) by his name.

Clinton wasn't disparaging the JOBS, he was criticizing the reclassification of burger flipping as "manufacturing" to make the job numbers appear more attractive. But that never happened anyway. Too embarrassing for whoever in the BA came up with that gem.

 

[Oddball]

And, BTW, how do we go about quantifying and calculating those mythical "saved jobs"???

 

[MaggieMae]

Mustn't forget all the 'measurable' jobs created under GW and the smashing he took regarding them. Here's a typical left wing blog post:

BUSH ECONOMY LIVING OFF LOW WAGE JOBS*|*TaylorMarsh.com

6.30.04
BUSH ECONOMY
LIVING OFF LOW WAGE JOBS ©
Inflation is Out of the Box

Jobs in lower-wage
industries and regions are growing at a faster pace than higher-wage
jobs, suggesting job growth is less potent for the economy because the
majority of new work isn’t accompanied by fat paychecks. … Nearly 14%
of the jobs added have been temporary workers, who typically are paid
lower wages. Restaurant workers, who also usually are paid lower wages,
have been added, too. Higher-paid computer jobs have been added at a
snail’s pace…

Low-wage Jobs Rise at Faster Pace
Today

The Bush economic numbers mirror W.’s WMD facts on Iraq.
The economy is in “recovery,” according to Bush Republicans.
And if you believe that I’ve got some WMDs around Tikrit and Baghdad
you’d probably like to buy.
If you like working just to get by.
Then George W. Bush is your man.
And if you're a big time investor or CEO…
George W. Bush is your man.
But if you’re one of the 1.5 million jobs created in the last six
months.
You're probably either working in a restaurant or working as a temp.

Hey, but why quibble?
Let me spell it out.
Lower paying positions don't allow for people
to have extra money to spend.
Also, low paying jobs rarely, if ever,
come with benefits like health
insurance.

…both employers
and workers are spending more and more on health insurance every year,
which puts increasing pressure on employers to reduce and require
higher contributions from workers. Case in point is Wal-Mart, the
nations largest private employer, which has dropped retiree coverage,
instituted a six-month waiting period for benefits for new hourly
employees, and declined to pay for flu shots, childhood vaccinations,
and other preventive services. Wal-Mart, which cut health care costs to
around 60 percent of average companies, may well become a model for
other large firms.”
....

Thanks for the reminders.

 

[Skull Pilot]

there is no way to count how many jobs were "saved".

hell If I want to take Obama's advice, i could "save" $500,000 by not buying that Ferrari. if I don't buy 2, i have saved a million bucks.

that's like my wife saying she got a $500 pair of shoes for free because they were 50% off and she paid for them with the $250 she saved.

Democratic math, ain't it wonderful.

 

[MaggieMae]

And, BTW, how do we go about quantifying and calculating those mythical "saved jobs"???

Ask the Wall Street Journal. Surely they have the numbers to back up their theories. Or not.

 

[Skull Pilot]

And, BTW, how do we go about quantifying and calculating those mythical "saved jobs"???

Ask the Wall Street Journal. Surely they have the numbers to back up their theories. Or not.

Here's a thought, since it's obama's claim that he "saved" those jobs why doesn't he show us his calculations?

But this is another "If i say it enough times and have everyone in my administration say it enough times, the sheeple will think it's true" strategy.

 

[MaggieMae]

there is no way to count how many jobs were "saved".

hell If I want to take Obama's advice, i could "save" $500,000 by noy buying that Ferrari. if I don't buy 2, i have saved a million bucks.

that's like my wife saying she got a $500 pair of shoes for free because they were 50% off and she paid for them with the $250 she saved.

Democratic math, ain't it wonderful.

So far it's better than voodoo economics, which your guys are still pushing. Just like the examples Annie posted (although I know he did that to point out how GWB was sooooo unjustifiably criticized), when the unemployment numbers came out and the BA touted to the public that it was bringing the numbers down on a regular basis, if you dug deep, you could find that (for example) some laid off engineer previously earning $100K per year needed to take two jobs to earn that much, and he probably got zero benefits because they were each "part-time."

The REASONS for layoffs during Bush's term were completely different from those today. Companies were laying off then to cut expenses and thereby be able to put more money into the pockets of their CEOs or invest in foreign ventures. This two-fer shit was commonplace to get that done. Now, however, people are being laid off because some of those same companies are actually going under for an entirely different set of economic problems, starting with the fact that their business credit lines no longer exist.

 

[Skull Pilot]

there is no way to count how many jobs were "saved".

hell If I want to take Obama's advice, i could "save" $500,000 by noy buying that Ferrari. if I don't buy 2, i have saved a million bucks.

that's like my wife saying she got a $500 pair of shoes for free because they were 50% off and she paid for them with the $250 she saved.

Democratic math, ain't it wonderful.

So far it's better than voodoo economics, which your guys are still pushing. Just like the examples Annie posted (although I know he did that to point out how GWB was sooooo unjustifiably criticized), when the unemployment numbers came out and the BA touted to the public that it was bringing the numbers down on a regular basis, if you dug deep, you could find that (for example) some laid off engineer previously earning $100K per year needed to take two jobs to earn that much, and he probably got zero benefits because they were each "part-time."

The REASONS for layoffs during Bush's term were completely different from those today. Companies were laying off then to cut expenses and thereby be able to put more money into the pockets of their CEOs or invest in foreign ventures. This two-fer shit was commonplace to get that done. Now, however, people are being laid off because some of those same companies are actually going under for an entirely different set of economic problems, starting with the fact that their business credit lines no longer exist.

Just who are "my guys"?

Do you mean repudlicans?

i am not and never have been a repudlican.

So Obama must have "saved" my business because we're doing better than last year right?

 

[Vel]

And, BTW, how do we go about quantifying and calculating those mythical "saved jobs"???

Ask the Wall Street Journal. Surely they have the numbers to back up their theories. Or not.

How about having Obama and the Democrats showing us the numbers since they're the ones claiming the "saved jobs".

 

[MaggieMae]

And, BTW, how do we go about quantifying and calculating those mythical "saved jobs"???

Ask the Wall Street Journal. Surely they have the numbers to back up their theories. Or not.

Here's a thought, since it's obama's claim that he "saved" those jobs why doesn't he show us his calculations?

But this is another "If i say it enough times and have everyone in my administration say it enough times, the sheeple will think it's true" strategy.

Obama has already said he is not happy with the progress, so quit making up shit he "might" say and LISTEN for a change. Nobody really will know what the "calculations" are until the unemployment situation at least levels out, and then the job becomes a trackback. Even the WSJ knows that, as well as the Obama administration.

Obama confronts doubts on stimulus, vows faster spending - Los Angeles Times

Any figure involves guesswork, the administration has conceded.

Bernstein, who is Biden's economic advisor, said in an interview that the president's citation of 150,000 is "an estimate" based partly on what the economy would look like in the absence of the stimulus package. But Bernstein said he could not break down how many of those jobs were created versus saved. "That's a division we're not able to make at a level of accuracy we're comfortable with," he said.

 

[MaggieMae]

there is no way to count how many jobs were "saved".

hell If I want to take Obama's advice, i could "save" $500,000 by noy buying that Ferrari. if I don't buy 2, i have saved a million bucks.

that's like my wife saying she got a $500 pair of shoes for free because they were 50% off and she paid for them with the $250 she saved.

Democratic math, ain't it wonderful.

So far it's better than voodoo economics, which your guys are still pushing. Just like the examples Annie posted (although I know he did that to point out how GWB was sooooo unjustifiably criticized), when the unemployment numbers came out and the BA touted to the public that it was bringing the numbers down on a regular basis, if you dug deep, you could find that (for example) some laid off engineer previously earning $100K per year needed to take two jobs to earn that much, and he probably got zero benefits because they were each "part-time."

The REASONS for layoffs during Bush's term were completely different from those today. Companies were laying off then to cut expenses and thereby be able to put more money into the pockets of their CEOs or invest in foreign ventures. This two-fer shit was commonplace to get that done. Now, however, people are being laid off because some of those same companies are actually going under for an entirely different set of economic problems, starting with the fact that their business credit lines no longer exist.

Just who are "my guys"?

Do you mean repudlicans?

i am not and never have been a repudlican.

So Obama must have "saved" my business because we're doing better than last year right?

I couldn't care less what you "call" yourself. You're part of the Limbaugh-esq cult who would be against anything Obama tried to do, ever. It's tit-for-tat politics--you bashed Bush, so we're gonna bash Obama. Waaaaah!!!!!!!!!! Fuck what might be good for the country as a whole.

 

[Vel]

Ask the Wall Street Journal. Surely they have the numbers to back up their theories. Or not.

Here's a thought, since it's obama's claim that he "saved" those jobs why doesn't he show us his calculations?

But this is another "If i say it enough times and have everyone in my administration say it enough times, the sheeple will think it's true" strategy.

Obama has already said he is not happy with the progress, so quit making up shit he "might" say and LISTEN for a change. Nobody really will know what the "calculations" are until the unemployment situation at least levels out, and then the job becomes a trackback. Even the WSJ knows that, as well as the Obama administration.

Obama confronts doubts on stimulus, vows faster spending - Los Angeles Times

Any figure involves guesswork, the administration has conceded.

Bernstein, who is Biden's economic advisor, said in an interview that the president's citation of 150,000 is "an estimate" based partly on what the economy would look like in the absence of the stimulus package. But Bernstein said he could not break down how many of those jobs were created versus saved. "That's a division we're not able to make at a level of accuracy we're comfortable with," he said.

Well can you at least tell us why Obama said that we must pass his stimulas bill because if we DIDN'T, unemployment numbers could hit 9%? I recall him saying if we passed his bill, then we could stop unemployment at 8%. Can you tell us why, since Congress PASSED his bill, unemployment is now at 9.4%? ( If you think this is bad, wait until the last minimum wage installment kicks in next month )

 

[MaggieMae]

Here's a thought, since it's obama's claim that he "saved" those jobs why doesn't he show us his calculations?

But this is another "If i say it enough times and have everyone in my administration say it enough times, the sheeple will think it's true" strategy.

Obama has already said he is not happy with the progress, so quit making up shit he "might" say and LISTEN for a change. Nobody really will know what the "calculations" are until the unemployment situation at least levels out, and then the job becomes a trackback. Even the WSJ knows that, as well as the Obama administration.

Obama confronts doubts on stimulus, vows faster spending - Los Angeles Times

Any figure involves guesswork, the administration has conceded.

Bernstein, who is Biden's economic advisor, said in an interview that the president's citation of 150,000 is "an estimate" based partly on what the economy would look like in the absence of the stimulus package. But Bernstein said he could not break down how many of those jobs were created versus saved. "That's a division we're not able to make at a level of accuracy we're comfortable with," he said.

Well can you at least tell us why Obama said that we must pass his stimulas bill because if we DIDN'T, unemployment numbers could hit 9%? I recall him saying if we passed his bill, then we could stop unemployment at 8%. Can you tell us why, since Congress PASSED his bill, unemployment is now at 9.4%? ( If you think this is bad, wait until the last minimum wage installment kicks in next month )

Oh I see, you want to quibble about the figure only. Picky picky picky. I don't recall Obama EVER giving any guarantees. But that's exactly what you people want: Instant results, instant gratification and of course since that's totally impossible for any THINKING person's rationale, you're happy as pigs in shit over the possibility of economic meltdown and continued high unemploymet. However, even as the economy and unemployment improves, you'll still be at it, so why do I even bother with you projectionists.

 

[WillowTree]

And, BTW, how do we go about quantifying and calculating those mythical "saved jobs"???

Ask the Wall Street Journal. Surely they have the numbers to back up their theories. Or not.

Here's a thought, since it's obama's claim that he "saved" those jobs why doesn't he show us his calculations?

But this is another "If i say it enough times and have everyone in my administration say it enough times, the sheeple will think it's true" strategy.

he won't show you his birth certificate,, why would he show you his ulations????

 

[Vel]

Obama has already said he is not happy with the progress, so quit making up shit he "might" say and LISTEN for a change. Nobody really will know what the "calculations" are until the unemployment situation at least levels out, and then the job becomes a trackback. Even the WSJ knows that, as well as the Obama administration.

Obama confronts doubts on stimulus, vows faster spending - Los Angeles Times

Any figure involves guesswork, the administration has conceded.

Bernstein, who is Biden's economic advisor, said in an interview that the president's citation of 150,000 is "an estimate" based partly on what the economy would look like in the absence of the stimulus package. But Bernstein said he could not break down how many of those jobs were created versus saved. "That's a division we're not able to make at a level of accuracy we're comfortable with," he said.

Well can you at least tell us why Obama said that we must pass his stimulas bill because if we DIDN'T, unemployment numbers could hit 9%? I recall him saying if we passed his bill, then we could stop unemployment at 8%. Can you tell us why, since Congress PASSED his bill, unemployment is now at 9.4%? ( If you think this is bad, wait until the last minimum wage installment kicks in next month )

Oh I see, you want to quibble about the figure only. Picky picky picky. I don't recall Obama EVER giving any guarantees. But that's exactly what you people want: Instant results, instant gratification and of course since that's totally impossible for any THINKING person's rationale, you're happy as pigs in shit over the possibility of economic meltdown and continued high unemploymet. However, even as the economy and unemployment improves, you'll still be at it, so why do I even bother with you projectionists.

No.. We just wanted the fucker to be honest. If he didn't know what the hell he was doing he should have said so.

 

[WillowTree]

Well can you at least tell us why Obama said that we must pass his stimulas bill because if we DIDN'T, unemployment numbers could hit 9%? I recall him saying if we passed his bill, then we could stop unemployment at 8%. Can you tell us why, since Congress PASSED his bill, unemployment is now at 9.4%? ( If you think this is bad, wait until the last minimum wage installment kicks in next month )

Oh I see, you want to quibble about the figure only. Picky picky picky. I don't recall Obama EVER giving any guarantees. But that's exactly what you people want: Instant results, instant gratification and of course since that's totally impossible for any THINKING person's rationale, you're happy as pigs in shit over the possibility of economic meltdown and continued high unemploymet. However, even as the economy and unemployment improves, you'll still be at it, so why do I even bother with you projectionists.

No.. We just wanted the fucker to be honest. If he didn't know what the hell he was doing he should have said so.

Now Now Now Vel honey,,, didn't you put the expectation of "Honest" away when the obamalama told you he went to church 20 years and never heard his hero, his mentor, his advisor, say what he said?? huh?