US Jobless claims fall to 4 decade low

[edthecynic]

You are indeed correct that the OMB did respond to criticism that job creation by the ACCA was overstated by examining the numbers provided. I would point out that the OMB took to task the veracity of the numbers that were provided by recipients of ACCA money on the number of jobs that were created.

Actually the criticism came from Republicans like Issa. OMB actually said the old reporting underestimated the number of jobs created or saved and gave this example:

"The tricky part is deciding whether a job would be lost or not," said Craig Jennings, senior federal fiscal policy analyst for the watchdog group OMB Watch. "It's impossible to know the alternate universe in which an employer did not receive Recovery Act funds."

Jennings said the reporting change is wise because it takes the judgment out of the hands of recipients by providing a clearer definition of jobs saved or retained. For example, Chrysler received $53 million in stimulus money but reported zero jobs created or saved because it used an existing workforce that it determined was not in danger of losing jobs. Using the new guidance, any Chrysler employee whose job was funded by the stimulus during that quarter now would be included.

"I have to applaud OMB's political braveness," Jennings said. "This change certainly will open the Obama administration up to attacks that they're changing the rules in the middle of the game just to get higher job counts. It might do that and it might not, but at the end of the day this is just a better way to get more accurate job counts."

"These changes are designed to make definitions clear, simplify the process, and increase accuracy so we achieve the transparency and accountability the process was designed to promote," wrote OMB spokesman Tom Gavin in an email.

 

[Rshermr]

Oldstyle is nothing but a monkey; flinging shit, hoping some of it will stick. Invariably, it ends up on him because he's just talking out of his ass to begin with.

Speaking of "flinging shit", Faun...did you want to show me the CBO report you said existed? Or did you think you could float that lie and I'd somehow buy it? Haven't the two of you figured out yet that I actually read the crap you try and pass off as proof?

I showed it to you. Is it my responsibility to make you understand it too?

You showed me a CBO report validating the ARRA job creation numbers? Show it to me again, Faun...I dare ya'!

Show it to you again?? Why? You obviously didn't understand it the first time.

Mostly because as Ed has pointed out the CBO never did such a report. I didn't "understand" it the first time because it was bullshit and it remains bullshit.

So, you saw a report that was bullshit in your food services mind. Got it. So, you were lying when you said you did not see it. Which we know.
You made accusations, but it is a case of lying again. Says the proven liar, who is a food services employee with no source proving his statements. Lets see, with the value of what OS says and a buck you could buy a candy bar.
You see, Oldstyle, the only bullshit on this board the last couple of days has been yours. Just you lying, and lying, and lying.
So, Oldstyle, you have proven the point that you are a lier. You have proven nothing else, because you lie about what people have said. Then you lie about what the reports say. Then you lie about what reports were ever done or were possible. You lie and lie and lie. Dipshit. Your biggest malfunction, though far from the only malfunction, is that you think you can establish yourself as a liar and then expect anyone to take you seriously. Once a liar, always a liar.

 

[Rshermr]

Did you post a formula for Jobs Saved, Ed...or did you post the general guidelines that they were working under when they created those jobs saved numbers out of thin air? A guess based on an assumption isn't really an economic formula...is it? Rshermr has claimed for months now that the CBO had an economic formula for determining jobs saved. Would you care to comment on that?

I posted the OMB formula for jobs saved, as you well know.
Here it is again:

A job retained/saved is defined as any existing position funded by the Recovery Act during the previous reporting quarter. Jobs funded partially with stimulus funds will be counted based on the proportion funded by the Recovery Act.

With all due respect, Ed...that isn't what the Obama Administration used to calculate it's numbers...is it?

Yes it is.

So you're saying that when the Obama Administration was claiming to have "Created or Saved" two million jobs with the ACCA that they did so with verified numbers from the ACCA forms that were required to be filled out?

Uh, me lying troll, You just keep flopping around like a dying fish, making statements with no backup, no expert proof. Because you want so badly to prove what you have been told to believe. But what you say is never backed with anything. Just the "thoughts" of a food services worker. And worth every bit of ......NOTHING. So, why is it you think anyone should believe you??????

 

[Oldstyle]

Did you post a formula for Jobs Saved, Ed...or did you post the general guidelines that they were working under when they created those jobs saved numbers out of thin air? A guess based on an assumption isn't really an economic formula...is it? Rshermr has claimed for months now that the CBO had an economic formula for determining jobs saved. Would you care to comment on that?

I posted the OMB formula for jobs saved, as you well know.
Here it is again:

A job retained/saved is defined as any existing position funded by the Recovery Act during the previous reporting quarter. Jobs funded partially with stimulus funds will be counted based on the proportion funded by the Recovery Act.

With all due respect, Ed...that isn't what the Obama Administration used to calculate it's numbers...is it?

Yes it is.

So you're saying that when the Obama Administration was claiming to have "Created or Saved" two million jobs with the ACCA that they did so with verified numbers from the ACCA forms that were required to be filled out?

Uh, me lying troll, You just keep flopping around like a dying fish, making statements with no backup, no expert proof. Because you want so badly to prove what you have been told to believe. But what you say is never backed with anything. Just the "thoughts" of a food services worker. And worth every bit of ......NOTHING. So, why is it you think anyone should believe you??????

No backup? Georgie...I quoted the part of the ACCA that required those getting funds to file reports on how many jobs they created with the money they were given and you STILL continued to lie and say no such reports existed! You got caught in yet another lie...and once again you're trying to bluff your way out of it with blue ink and insults. It's what makes you one of the sleazier members of our board!

 

[Rshermr]

I posted the OMB formula for jobs saved, as you well know.
Here it is again:

A job retained/saved is defined as any existing position funded by the Recovery Act during the previous reporting quarter. Jobs funded partially with stimulus funds will be counted based on the proportion funded by the Recovery Act.

With all due respect, Ed...that isn't what the Obama Administration used to calculate it's numbers...is it?

Yes it is.

So you're saying that when the Obama Administration was claiming to have "Created or Saved" two million jobs with the ACCA that they did so with verified numbers from the ACCA forms that were required to be filled out?

Uh, me lying troll, You just keep flopping around like a dying fish, making statements with no backup, no expert proof. Behich is cause you want so badly to prove what you have been told to believe. But what you say is never backed with anything. Just the "thoughts" of a food services worker. And worth every bit of ......NOTHING. So, why is it you think anyone should believe you??????

No backup? Georgie...I quoted the part of the ACCA that required those getting funds to file reports on how many jobs they created with the money they were given and you STILL continued to lie and say no such reports existed! You got caught in yet another lie...and once again you're trying to bluff your way out of it with blue ink and insults. It's what makes you one of the sleazier members of our board!

So, Oldstyle, still lying, says:
"No backup? Georgie...I quoted the part of the ACCA that required those getting funds to file reports on how many jobs they created with the money they were given and you STILL continued to lie and say no such reports existed! "

No, me poor lying con troll. You first said there was a report by the acca. Which there was not. So, Lie number 1. You then showed that individual reporting recipients were required to produce surveys on their own experience. Which we all knew. And which you tried to conflate into a report of the overall effects of ACCA. Which it was not. so, Lie number 2.
Then you said that I asserted that no such individual surveys that were required did not exist. I never, ever made such an accusation. Which I did not ever say, so Lie number 3.
You got caught in yet another lie...and once again you're trying to bluff your way out of it with blue ink and insults. I never, ever lie, and did not lie here. But you did. Saying that I was lying is Lie number 4.
It's what makes you one of the sleazier members of our board
uh, let me suggest that you are a joke. Personal attacks and lies. Thanks for proving who and what you are, me food services worker.
While a normal and rational person could not lie in the way that con trolls like Oldstyle does, Oldstyle has no problem at all lying. He simply does so over and over and over. Because he has no honor, no integrity of any kind.

 

[Faun]

With all due respect, Ed...that isn't what the Obama Administration used to calculate it's numbers...is it?

Yes it is.

So you're saying that when the Obama Administration was claiming to have "Created or Saved" two million jobs with the ACCA that they did so with verified numbers from the ACCA forms that were required to be filled out?

Uh, me lying troll, You just keep flopping around like a dying fish, making statements with no backup, no expert proof. Behich is cause you want so badly to prove what you have been told to believe. But what you say is never backed with anything. Just the "thoughts" of a food services worker. And worth every bit of ......NOTHING. So, why is it you think anyone should believe you??????

No backup? Georgie...I quoted the part of the ACCA that required those getting funds to file reports on how many jobs they created with the money they were given and you STILL continued to lie and say no such reports existed! You got caught in yet another lie...and once again you're trying to bluff your way out of it with blue ink and insults. It's what makes you one of the sleazier members of our board!

So, Oldstyle, still lying, says:
"No backup? Georgie...I quoted the part of the ACCA that required those getting funds to file reports on how many jobs they created with the money they were given and you STILL continued to lie and say no such reports existed! "

No, me poor lying con troll. You first said there was a report by the acca. Which there was not. You then showed that individual reporting recipients were required to produce surveys on their own experience. Which we all knew. And which you tried to conflate into a report of the overall effects of ACCA. Which it was not. so, Lie number 1.
Then you said that I asserted that no such individual surveys that were required did not exist. I never, ever made such an accusation. Which I did not ever say, so Lie number 2.
You got caught in yet another lie...and once again you're trying to bluff your way out of it with blue ink and insults. I never, ever lie, and did not lie here. But you did. Saying that I was lying is Lie number 3.
It's what makes you one of the sleazier members of our board
uh, let me suggest that you are a joke. Personal attacks and lies. Thanks for proving who and what you are, me food services worker.

Let's not forget, the lying con tool started with the lie that the Obama administration merely made up the numbers. That was before he was shown how ARRA recipients had to fill out a survey to indicate how many jobs the funds contributed to saving or creating. That was a lie he told after telling another lie that the Obama administration was the first to use the term, jobs saved, which he also lied about when he claimed the Obama administration began using that term because their were too few jobs saved and/or created. That was before he was shown they started using that term before ARRA was implemented.

He basically muddles through from one lie to the next.

 

[Rshermr]

I posted the OMB formula for jobs saved, as you well know.
Here it is again:

A job retained/saved is defined as any existing position funded by the Recovery Act during the previous reporting quarter. Jobs funded partially with stimulus funds will be counted based on the proportion funded by the Recovery Act.

With all due respect, Ed...that isn't what the Obama Administration used to calculate it's numbers...is it?

Yes it is.

So you're saying that when the Obama Administration was claiming to have "Created or Saved" two million jobs with the ACCA that they did so with verified numbers from the ACCA forms that were required to be filled out?

Uh, me lying troll, You just keep flopping around like a dying fish, making statements with no backup, no expert proof. Because you want so badly to prove what you have been told to believe. But what you say is never backed with anything. Just the "thoughts" of a food services worker. And worth every bit of ......NOTHING. So, why is it you think anyone should believe you??????

No backup? Georgie...I quoted the part of the ACCA that required those getting funds to file reports on how many jobs they created with the money they were given and you STILL continued to lie and say no such reports existed! You got caught in yet another lie...and once again you're trying to bluff your way out of it with blue ink and insults. It's what makes you one of the sleazier members of our board!

Yes, as you know, you provided no backup. You stated that there was a survey created by the acca. Your source said no such thing. It simply said there were required job surveys for the individual recipients. Just another lie from the king of Liars.

 

[Rshermr]

Yes it is.

So you're saying that when the Obama Administration was claiming to have "Created or Saved" two million jobs with the ACCA that they did so with verified numbers from the ACCA forms that were required to be filled out?

Uh, me lying troll, You just keep flopping around like a dying fish, making statements with no backup, no expert proof. Behich is cause you want so badly to prove what you have been told to believe. But what you say is never backed with anything. Just the "thoughts" of a food services worker. And worth every bit of ......NOTHING. So, why is it you think anyone should believe you??????

No backup? Georgie...I quoted the part of the ACCA that required those getting funds to file reports on how many jobs they created with the money they were given and you STILL continued to lie and say no such reports existed! You got caught in yet another lie...and once again you're trying to bluff your way out of it with blue ink and insults. It's what makes you one of the sleazier members of our board!

So, Oldstyle, still lying, says:
"No backup? Georgie...I quoted the part of the ACCA that required those getting funds to file reports on how many jobs they created with the money they were given and you STILL continued to lie and say no such reports existed! "

No, me poor lying con troll. You first said there was a report by the acca. Which there was not. You then showed that individual reporting recipients were required to produce surveys on their own experience. Which we all knew. And which you tried to conflate into a report of the overall effects of ACCA. Which it was not. so, Lie number 1.
Then you said that I asserted that no such individual surveys that were required did not exist. I never, ever made such an accusation. Which I did not ever say, so Lie number 2.
You got caught in yet another lie...and once again you're trying to bluff your way out of it with blue ink and insults. I never, ever lie, and did not lie here. But you did. Saying that I was lying is Lie number 3.
It's what makes you one of the sleazier members of our board
uh, let me suggest that you are a joke. Personal attacks and lies. Thanks for proving who and what you are, me food services worker.

Let's not forget, the lying con tool started with the lie that the Obama administration merely made up the numbers. That was before he was shown how ARRA recipients had to fill out a survey to indicate how many jobs the funds contributed to saving or creating. That was a lie he told after telling another lie that the Obama administration was the first to use the term, jobs saved, which he also lied about when he claimed the Obama administration began using that term because their were too few jobs saved and/or created. That was before he was shown they started using that term before ARRA was implemented.

He basically muddles through from one lie to the next.

He relies on the fact that no one looks for lies, because they do not lie themselves. So they can not believe that someone would lie, time after time. It takes a while to understand that Oldstyle has no problem at all lying. It is part and parcel of his nonsense. His lying ways.
Oldstyle relies on that advantage, that people will not expect lies. So they will start out believing him. His problem is that he has developed a reputation as a liar, and is seeing that reputation understood by more and more people. So, he becomes more and more impertinent. And trivial.

 

[Oldstyle]

You are indeed correct that the OMB did respond to criticism that job creation by the ACCA was overstated by examining the numbers provided. I would point out that the OMB took to task the veracity of the numbers that were provided by recipients of ACCA money on the number of jobs that were created.

Actually the criticism came from Republicans like Issa. OMB actually said the old reporting underestimated the number of jobs created or saved and gave this example:

"The tricky part is deciding whether a job would be lost or not," said Craig Jennings, senior federal fiscal policy analyst for the watchdog group OMB Watch. "It's impossible to know the alternate universe in which an employer did not receive Recovery Act funds."

Jennings said the reporting change is wise because it takes the judgment out of the hands of recipients by providing a clearer definition of jobs saved or retained. For example, Chrysler received $53 million in stimulus money but reported zero jobs created or saved because it used an existing workforce that it determined was not in danger of losing jobs. Using the new guidance, any Chrysler employee whose job was funded by the stimulus during that quarter now would be included.

"I have to applaud OMB's political braveness," Jennings said. "This change certainly will open the Obama administration up to attacks that they're changing the rules in the middle of the game just to get higher job counts. It might do that and it might not, but at the end of the day this is just a better way to get more accurate job counts."

"These changes are designed to make definitions clear, simplify the process, and increase accuracy so we achieve the transparency and accountability the process was designed to promote," wrote OMB spokesman Tom Gavin in an email.

Let's be honest here, Ed...the "criticism" came from many quarters...including the GOP...and reporters that had started to look into the reporting. The OMB really had no choice but to question the validity of the numbers coming from the ACCA reports because to be blunt...it was obvious there were huge problems with the numbers!

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d10223.pdf

"United States Government Accountability Office
(continued)
For example, GAO’s review of prime recipient reports
identified the following
•
3,978 reports that showed no dollar amount
received or expended
but included more than
50,000 jobs created or retained;

9,247 reports that showed no jobs but included
expended amounts approaching $1 billion
•
Instances of other reporting anomalies such as
discrepancies between award amounts and the
amounts reported as received which, although
relatively small in number, indicate problematic
issues in the reporting"

With all due respect to Mr Jennings lauding the OMB for "political braveness"...the problems in the reports were so glaringly obvious...the OMB really had no choice but to point out their existence. To do anything else would have made them a laughingstock.

 

[Oldstyle]

With all due respect, Ed...that isn't what the Obama Administration used to calculate it's numbers...is it?

Yes it is.

So you're saying that when the Obama Administration was claiming to have "Created or Saved" two million jobs with the ACCA that they did so with verified numbers from the ACCA forms that were required to be filled out?

Uh, me lying troll, You just keep flopping around like a dying fish, making statements with no backup, no expert proof. Because you want so badly to prove what you have been told to believe. But what you say is never backed with anything. Just the "thoughts" of a food services worker. And worth every bit of ......NOTHING. So, why is it you think anyone should believe you??????

No backup? Georgie...I quoted the part of the ACCA that required those getting funds to file reports on how many jobs they created with the money they were given and you STILL continued to lie and say no such reports existed! You got caught in yet another lie...and once again you're trying to bluff your way out of it with blue ink and insults. It's what makes you one of the sleazier members of our board!

Yes, as you know, you provided no backup. You stated that there was a survey created by the acca. Your source said no such thing. It simply said there were required job surveys for the individual recipients. Just another lie from the king of Liars.

So when I provided the actual regulation in the ACCA requiring recipients file reports on how many jobs were created by the ACCA money they were granted...that didn't count as "backup"? What would...you blathering idiot?

 

[Rshermr]

You are indeed correct that the OMB did respond to criticism that job creation by the ACCA was overstated by examining the numbers provided. I would point out that the OMB took to task the veracity of the numbers that were provided by recipients of ACCA money on the number of jobs that were created.

Actually the criticism came from Republicans like Issa. OMB actually said the old reporting underestimated the number of jobs created or saved and gave this example:

"The tricky part is deciding whether a job would be lost or not," said Craig Jennings, senior federal fiscal policy analyst for the watchdog group OMB Watch. "It's impossible to know the alternate universe in which an employer did not receive Recovery Act funds."

Jennings said the reporting change is wise because it takes the judgment out of the hands of recipients by providing a clearer definition of jobs saved or retained. For example, Chrysler received $53 million in stimulus money but reported zero jobs created or saved because it used an existing workforce that it determined was not in danger of losing jobs. Using the new guidance, any Chrysler employee whose job was funded by the stimulus during that quarter now would be included.

"I have to applaud OMB's political braveness," Jennings said. "This change certainly will open the Obama administration up to attacks that they're changing the rules in the middle of the game just to get higher job counts. It might do that and it might not, but at the end of the day this is just a better way to get more accurate job counts."

"These changes are designed to make definitions clear, simplify the process, and increase accuracy so we achieve the transparency and accountability the process was designed to promote," wrote OMB spokesman Tom Gavin in an email.

Let's be honest here, Ed...the "criticism" came from many quarters...including the GOP...and reporters that had started to look into the reporting. The OMB really had no choice but to question the validity of the numbers coming from the ACCA reports because to be blunt...it was obvious there were huge problems with the numbers!

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d10223.pdf

"United States Government Accountability Office
(continued)
For example, GAO’s review of prime recipient reports
identified the following
•
3,978 reports that showed no dollar amount
received or expended
but included more than
50,000 jobs created or retained;

9,247 reports that showed no jobs but included
expended amounts approaching $1 billion
•
Instances of other reporting anomalies such as
discrepancies between award amounts and the
amounts reported as received which, although
relatively small in number, indicate problematic
issues in the reporting"

With all due respect to Mr Jennings lauding the OMB for "political braveness"...the problems in the reports were so glaringly obvious...the OMB really had no choice but to point out their existence. To do anything else would have made them a laughingstock.

The food services worker is looking at economic reports, he says. But in reality, he is simply posting con talking points. But relative to your post, there was a laughingstock. YOU.

 

[Rshermr]

Yes it is.

So you're saying that when the Obama Administration was claiming to have "Created or Saved" two million jobs with the ACCA that they did so with verified numbers from the ACCA forms that were required to be filled out?

Uh, me lying troll, You just keep flopping around like a dying fish, making statements with no backup, no expert proof. Because you want so badly to prove what you have been told to believe. But what you say is never backed with anything. Just the "thoughts" of a food services worker. And worth every bit of ......NOTHING. So, why is it you think anyone should believe you??????

No backup? Georgie...I quoted the part of the ACCA that required those getting funds to file reports on how many jobs they created with the money they were given and you STILL continued to lie and say no such reports existed! You got caught in yet another lie...and once again you're trying to bluff your way out of it with blue ink and insults. It's what makes you one of the sleazier members of our board!

Yes, as you know, you provided no backup. You stated that there was a survey created by the acca. Your source said no such thing. It simply said there were required job surveys for the individual recipients. Just another lie from the king of Liars.

So when I provided the actual regulation in the ACCA requiring recipients file reports on how many jobs were created by the ACCA money they were granted...that didn't count as "backup"? What would...you blathering idiot?

The subject of what you were attempting to prove with your lies matters. As you know, dipshit, you were saying that I had suggested that there was a cbo report about the ACCA report on jobs. Which you stated. But which was untrue. There was no such ACCA report. You provided proof of recipients surveys. Those surveys only showed what an individual recipient of stimulus funds stated had occurred as a result of those funds. Not an ACCA report of overall results. Because such an ACCA report did not and could not exist.
What would??? Really, nothing, because you lied when you said there was an ACCA report. All you showed was that individual recipients had made surveys of their own, individual results. You blathering idiot. Actually, blathering lying idiot.

 

[edthecynic]

You are indeed correct that the OMB did respond to criticism that job creation by the ACCA was overstated by examining the numbers provided. I would point out that the OMB took to task the veracity of the numbers that were provided by recipients of ACCA money on the number of jobs that were created.

Actually the criticism came from Republicans like Issa. OMB actually said the old reporting underestimated the number of jobs created or saved and gave this example:

"The tricky part is deciding whether a job would be lost or not," said Craig Jennings, senior federal fiscal policy analyst for the watchdog group OMB Watch. "It's impossible to know the alternate universe in which an employer did not receive Recovery Act funds."

Jennings said the reporting change is wise because it takes the judgment out of the hands of recipients by providing a clearer definition of jobs saved or retained. For example, Chrysler received $53 million in stimulus money but reported zero jobs created or saved because it used an existing workforce that it determined was not in danger of losing jobs. Using the new guidance, any Chrysler employee whose job was funded by the stimulus during that quarter now would be included.

"I have to applaud OMB's political braveness," Jennings said. "This change certainly will open the Obama administration up to attacks that they're changing the rules in the middle of the game just to get higher job counts. It might do that and it might not, but at the end of the day this is just a better way to get more accurate job counts."

"These changes are designed to make definitions clear, simplify the process, and increase accuracy so we achieve the transparency and accountability the process was designed to promote," wrote OMB spokesman Tom Gavin in an email.

Let's be honest here, Ed...the "criticism" came from many quarters...including the GOP...and reporters that had started to look into the reporting. The OMB really had no choice but to question the validity of the numbers coming from the ACCA reports because to be blunt...it was obvious there were huge problems with the numbers!

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d10223.pdf

"United States Government Accountability Office
(continued)
For example, GAO’s review of prime recipient reports
identified the following
•
3,978 reports that showed no dollar amount
received or expended
but included more than
50,000 jobs created or retained;

9,247 reports that showed no jobs but included
expended amounts approaching $1 billion
•
Instances of other reporting anomalies such as
discrepancies between award amounts and the
amounts reported as received which, although
relatively small in number, indicate problematic
issues in the reporting"

With all due respect to Mr Jennings lauding the OMB for "political braveness"...the problems in the reports were so glaringly obvious...the OMB really had no choice but to point out their existence. To do anything else would have made them a laughingstock.

Gee, you left this out:
"Data Reporting and Quality

While recipients GAO contacted appear
to have made good faith efforts to
ensure complete and accurate reporting, GAO’s fieldwork and initial review
and analysis of recipient data from www.recovery.gov, indicate that there are a
range of significant reporting and quality issues that need to be addressed."

And the OMB immediately made the changes the GAO recommended so only the first quarter reports were of lower quality:

Recommendations for Executive Action

To improve the consistency of FTE data collection and
reporting, OMB should (1) clarify the definition and
standardize the period of measurement for FTEs and
work with federal agencies to align this guidance with
OMB’s guidance and across agencies; (2) given its
reporting approach, consider being more explicit that
“jobs created or retained” are to be reported as hours
worked and paid for with Recovery Act funds; and (3)
continue working with federal agencies and encourage
them to provide or improve program-specific guidance
to assist recipients, especially as it applies to the full-
time equivalent calculation for individual programs.

 

[Oldstyle]

So you're saying that when the Obama Administration was claiming to have "Created or Saved" two million jobs with the ACCA that they did so with verified numbers from the ACCA forms that were required to be filled out?

Uh, me lying troll, You just keep flopping around like a dying fish, making statements with no backup, no expert proof. Because you want so badly to prove what you have been told to believe. But what you say is never backed with anything. Just the "thoughts" of a food services worker. And worth every bit of ......NOTHING. So, why is it you think anyone should believe you??????

No backup? Georgie...I quoted the part of the ACCA that required those getting funds to file reports on how many jobs they created with the money they were given and you STILL continued to lie and say no such reports existed! You got caught in yet another lie...and once again you're trying to bluff your way out of it with blue ink and insults. It's what makes you one of the sleazier members of our board!

Yes, as you know, you provided no backup. You stated that there was a survey created by the acca. Your source said no such thing. It simply said there were required job surveys for the individual recipients. Just another lie from the king of Liars.

So when I provided the actual regulation in the ACCA requiring recipients file reports on how many jobs were created by the ACCA money they were granted...that didn't count as "backup"? What would...you blathering idiot?

The subject of what you were attempting to prove with your lies matters. As you know, dipshit, you were saying that I had suggested that there was a cbo report about the ACCA report on jobs. Which you stated. But which was untrue. There was no such ACCA report. You provided proof of recipients surveys. Those surveys only showed what an individual recipient of stimulus funds stated had occurred as a result of those funds. Not an ACCA report of overall results. Because such an ACCA report did not and could not exist.
What would??? Really, nothing, because you lied when you said there was an ACCA report. All you showed was that individual recipients had made surveys of their own, individual results. You blathering idiot. Actually, blathering lying idiot.

You really are one of the more CLUELESS people I've ever run across, Georgie! I asked you for the CBO report that you and Faun insisted existed because I knew that it DIDN'T exist!

Your claim that there was no ACCA report on jobs created with stimulus funds is obviously false. I showed you the statute in the ACCA that REQUIRES such a report be filed.

That you are here still trying to argue that report doesn't exist is laughable!

You really can't admit you're wrong...can you?

 

[Oldstyle]

You are indeed correct that the OMB did respond to criticism that job creation by the ACCA was overstated by examining the numbers provided. I would point out that the OMB took to task the veracity of the numbers that were provided by recipients of ACCA money on the number of jobs that were created.

Actually the criticism came from Republicans like Issa. OMB actually said the old reporting underestimated the number of jobs created or saved and gave this example:

"The tricky part is deciding whether a job would be lost or not," said Craig Jennings, senior federal fiscal policy analyst for the watchdog group OMB Watch. "It's impossible to know the alternate universe in which an employer did not receive Recovery Act funds."

Jennings said the reporting change is wise because it takes the judgment out of the hands of recipients by providing a clearer definition of jobs saved or retained. For example, Chrysler received $53 million in stimulus money but reported zero jobs created or saved because it used an existing workforce that it determined was not in danger of losing jobs. Using the new guidance, any Chrysler employee whose job was funded by the stimulus during that quarter now would be included.

"I have to applaud OMB's political braveness," Jennings said. "This change certainly will open the Obama administration up to attacks that they're changing the rules in the middle of the game just to get higher job counts. It might do that and it might not, but at the end of the day this is just a better way to get more accurate job counts."

"These changes are designed to make definitions clear, simplify the process, and increase accuracy so we achieve the transparency and accountability the process was designed to promote," wrote OMB spokesman Tom Gavin in an email.

Let's be honest here, Ed...the "criticism" came from many quarters...including the GOP...and reporters that had started to look into the reporting. The OMB really had no choice but to question the validity of the numbers coming from the ACCA reports because to be blunt...it was obvious there were huge problems with the numbers!

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d10223.pdf

"United States Government Accountability Office
(continued)
For example, GAO’s review of prime recipient reports
identified the following
•
3,978 reports that showed no dollar amount
received or expended
but included more than
50,000 jobs created or retained;

9,247 reports that showed no jobs but included
expended amounts approaching $1 billion
•
Instances of other reporting anomalies such as
discrepancies between award amounts and the
amounts reported as received which, although
relatively small in number, indicate problematic
issues in the reporting"

With all due respect to Mr Jennings lauding the OMB for "political braveness"...the problems in the reports were so glaringly obvious...the OMB really had no choice but to point out their existence. To do anything else would have made them a laughingstock.

Gee, you left this out:
"Data Reporting and Quality

While recipients GAO contacted appear
to have made good faith efforts to
ensure complete and accurate reporting, GAO’s fieldwork and initial review
and analysis of recipient data from www.recovery.gov, indicate that there are a
range of significant reporting and quality issues that need to be addressed."

And the OMB immediately made the changes the GAO recommended so only the first quarter reports were of lower quality:

Recommendations for Executive Action

To improve the consistency of FTE data collection and
reporting, OMB should (1) clarify the definition and
standardize the period of measurement for FTEs and
work with federal agencies to align this guidance with
OMB’s guidance and across agencies; (2) given its
reporting approach, consider being more explicit that
“jobs created or retained” are to be reported as hours
worked and paid for with Recovery Act funds; and (3)
continue working with federal agencies and encourage
them to provide or improve program-specific guidance
to assist recipients, especially as it applies to the full-
time equivalent calculation for individual programs.

What the OMB was pointing out in that VERY diplomatic statement is that the reports that had been filed by ACCA recipients were a disaster and that the Federal agencies in charge of monitoring those reports and providing guidance to those filling out the reports had done almost as bad a job at THAT as the recipients themselves!

 

[Oldstyle]

You are indeed correct that the OMB did respond to criticism that job creation by the ACCA was overstated by examining the numbers provided. I would point out that the OMB took to task the veracity of the numbers that were provided by recipients of ACCA money on the number of jobs that were created.

Actually the criticism came from Republicans like Issa. OMB actually said the old reporting underestimated the number of jobs created or saved and gave this example:

"The tricky part is deciding whether a job would be lost or not," said Craig Jennings, senior federal fiscal policy analyst for the watchdog group OMB Watch. "It's impossible to know the alternate universe in which an employer did not receive Recovery Act funds."

Jennings said the reporting change is wise because it takes the judgment out of the hands of recipients by providing a clearer definition of jobs saved or retained. For example, Chrysler received $53 million in stimulus money but reported zero jobs created or saved because it used an existing workforce that it determined was not in danger of losing jobs. Using the new guidance, any Chrysler employee whose job was funded by the stimulus during that quarter now would be included.

"I have to applaud OMB's political braveness," Jennings said. "This change certainly will open the Obama administration up to attacks that they're changing the rules in the middle of the game just to get higher job counts. It might do that and it might not, but at the end of the day this is just a better way to get more accurate job counts."

"These changes are designed to make definitions clear, simplify the process, and increase accuracy so we achieve the transparency and accountability the process was designed to promote," wrote OMB spokesman Tom Gavin in an email.

Let's be honest here, Ed...the "criticism" came from many quarters...including the GOP...and reporters that had started to look into the reporting. The OMB really had no choice but to question the validity of the numbers coming from the ACCA reports because to be blunt...it was obvious there were huge problems with the numbers!

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d10223.pdf

"United States Government Accountability Office
(continued)
For example, GAO’s review of prime recipient reports
identified the following
•
3,978 reports that showed no dollar amount
received or expended
but included more than
50,000 jobs created or retained;

9,247 reports that showed no jobs but included
expended amounts approaching $1 billion
•
Instances of other reporting anomalies such as
discrepancies between award amounts and the
amounts reported as received which, although
relatively small in number, indicate problematic
issues in the reporting"

With all due respect to Mr Jennings lauding the OMB for "political braveness"...the problems in the reports were so glaringly obvious...the OMB really had no choice but to point out their existence. To do anything else would have made them a laughingstock.

The food services worker is looking at economic reports, he says. But in reality, he is simply posting con talking points. But relative to your post, there was a laughingstock. YOU.

You know what, Georgie? I'm having some nice give and take with Ed. He's making valid points. He's making points that I don't agree with. I'm making valid points. I'm making points HE doesn't agree with! Both of us happen to be backing up our points with economic reports. The only person that ISN'T doing that is you! When's the last time you posted something that wasn't either an accusation that I lie...or your usual drivel about "con talking points"? For all of your whining about "personal attacks" and "talking points'...THAT'S ALL YOU CONTRIBUTE TO THE MAJORITY OF THE THREADS YOU ARE IN!

 

[Faun]

Uh, me lying troll, You just keep flopping around like a dying fish, making statements with no backup, no expert proof. Because you want so badly to prove what you have been told to believe. But what you say is never backed with anything. Just the "thoughts" of a food services worker. And worth every bit of ......NOTHING. So, why is it you think anyone should believe you??????

No backup? Georgie...I quoted the part of the ACCA that required those getting funds to file reports on how many jobs they created with the money they were given and you STILL continued to lie and say no such reports existed! You got caught in yet another lie...and once again you're trying to bluff your way out of it with blue ink and insults. It's what makes you one of the sleazier members of our board!

Yes, as you know, you provided no backup. You stated that there was a survey created by the acca. Your source said no such thing. It simply said there were required job surveys for the individual recipients. Just another lie from the king of Liars.

So when I provided the actual regulation in the ACCA requiring recipients file reports on how many jobs were created by the ACCA money they were granted...that didn't count as "backup"? What would...you blathering idiot?

The subject of what you were attempting to prove with your lies matters. As you know, dipshit, you were saying that I had suggested that there was a cbo report about the ACCA report on jobs. Which you stated. But which was untrue. There was no such ACCA report. You provided proof of recipients surveys. Those surveys only showed what an individual recipient of stimulus funds stated had occurred as a result of those funds. Not an ACCA report of overall results. Because such an ACCA report did not and could not exist.
What would??? Really, nothing, because you lied when you said there was an ACCA report. All you showed was that individual recipients had made surveys of their own, individual results. You blathering idiot. Actually, blathering lying idiot.

You really are one of the more CLUELESS people I've ever run across, Georgie! I asked you for the CBO report that you and Faun insisted existed because I knew that it DIDN'T exist!

Your claim that there was no ACCA report on jobs created with stimulus funds is obviously false. I showed you the statute in the ACCA that REQUIRES such a report be filed.

That you are here still trying to argue that report doesn't exist is laughable!

You really can't admit you're wrong...can you?

Do you ever stop lying, ya con tool? EVER??

I already gave you a link to a CBO report which utilized ARRA recipient reports to calculate the number of jobs saved and created for the previous quarter as well as the title of the section for where to find it in that CBO report.

 

[edthecynic]

You are indeed correct that the OMB did respond to criticism that job creation by the ACCA was overstated by examining the numbers provided. I would point out that the OMB took to task the veracity of the numbers that were provided by recipients of ACCA money on the number of jobs that were created.

Actually the criticism came from Republicans like Issa. OMB actually said the old reporting underestimated the number of jobs created or saved and gave this example:

"The tricky part is deciding whether a job would be lost or not," said Craig Jennings, senior federal fiscal policy analyst for the watchdog group OMB Watch. "It's impossible to know the alternate universe in which an employer did not receive Recovery Act funds."

Jennings said the reporting change is wise because it takes the judgment out of the hands of recipients by providing a clearer definition of jobs saved or retained. For example, Chrysler received $53 million in stimulus money but reported zero jobs created or saved because it used an existing workforce that it determined was not in danger of losing jobs. Using the new guidance, any Chrysler employee whose job was funded by the stimulus during that quarter now would be included.

"I have to applaud OMB's political braveness," Jennings said. "This change certainly will open the Obama administration up to attacks that they're changing the rules in the middle of the game just to get higher job counts. It might do that and it might not, but at the end of the day this is just a better way to get more accurate job counts."

"These changes are designed to make definitions clear, simplify the process, and increase accuracy so we achieve the transparency and accountability the process was designed to promote," wrote OMB spokesman Tom Gavin in an email.

Let's be honest here, Ed...the "criticism" came from many quarters...including the GOP...and reporters that had started to look into the reporting. The OMB really had no choice but to question the validity of the numbers coming from the ACCA reports because to be blunt...it was obvious there were huge problems with the numbers!

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d10223.pdf

"United States Government Accountability Office
(continued)
For example, GAO’s review of prime recipient reports
identified the following
•
3,978 reports that showed no dollar amount
received or expended
but included more than
50,000 jobs created or retained;

9,247 reports that showed no jobs but included
expended amounts approaching $1 billion
•
Instances of other reporting anomalies such as
discrepancies between award amounts and the
amounts reported as received which, although
relatively small in number, indicate problematic
issues in the reporting"

With all due respect to Mr Jennings lauding the OMB for "political braveness"...the problems in the reports were so glaringly obvious...the OMB really had no choice but to point out their existence. To do anything else would have made them a laughingstock.

Gee, you left this out:
"Data Reporting and Quality

While recipients GAO contacted appear
to have made good faith efforts to
ensure complete and accurate reporting, GAO’s fieldwork and initial review
and analysis of recipient data from www.recovery.gov, indicate that there are a
range of significant reporting and quality issues that need to be addressed."

And the OMB immediately made the changes the GAO recommended so only the first quarter reports were of lower quality:

Recommendations for Executive Action

To improve the consistency of FTE data collection and
reporting, OMB should (1) clarify the definition and
standardize the period of measurement for FTEs and
work with federal agencies to align this guidance with
OMB’s guidance and across agencies; (2) given its
reporting approach, consider being more explicit that
“jobs created or retained” are to be reported as hours
worked and paid for with Recovery Act funds; and (3)
continue working with federal agencies and encourage
them to provide or improve program-specific guidance
to assist recipients, especially as it applies to the full-
time equivalent calculation for individual programs.

What the OMB was pointing out in that VERY diplomatic statement is that the reports that had been filed by ACCA recipients were a disaster and that the Federal agencies in charge of monitoring those reports and providing guidance to those filling out the reports had done almost as bad a job at THAT as the recipients themselves!

OMB was hardly being "diplomatic!" They simply followed the advice of the GAO. Again the only report you can gripe about was the first quarter which I showed UNDERESTIMATED the number of jobs created or saved.

 

[Oldstyle]

You are indeed correct that the OMB did respond to criticism that job creation by the ACCA was overstated by examining the numbers provided. I would point out that the OMB took to task the veracity of the numbers that were provided by recipients of ACCA money on the number of jobs that were created.

Actually the criticism came from Republicans like Issa. OMB actually said the old reporting underestimated the number of jobs created or saved and gave this example:

"The tricky part is deciding whether a job would be lost or not," said Craig Jennings, senior federal fiscal policy analyst for the watchdog group OMB Watch. "It's impossible to know the alternate universe in which an employer did not receive Recovery Act funds."

Jennings said the reporting change is wise because it takes the judgment out of the hands of recipients by providing a clearer definition of jobs saved or retained. For example, Chrysler received $53 million in stimulus money but reported zero jobs created or saved because it used an existing workforce that it determined was not in danger of losing jobs. Using the new guidance, any Chrysler employee whose job was funded by the stimulus during that quarter now would be included.

"I have to applaud OMB's political braveness," Jennings said. "This change certainly will open the Obama administration up to attacks that they're changing the rules in the middle of the game just to get higher job counts. It might do that and it might not, but at the end of the day this is just a better way to get more accurate job counts."

"These changes are designed to make definitions clear, simplify the process, and increase accuracy so we achieve the transparency and accountability the process was designed to promote," wrote OMB spokesman Tom Gavin in an email.

Let's be honest here, Ed...the "criticism" came from many quarters...including the GOP...and reporters that had started to look into the reporting. The OMB really had no choice but to question the validity of the numbers coming from the ACCA reports because to be blunt...it was obvious there were huge problems with the numbers!

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d10223.pdf

"United States Government Accountability Office
(continued)
For example, GAO’s review of prime recipient reports
identified the following
•
3,978 reports that showed no dollar amount
received or expended
but included more than
50,000 jobs created or retained;

9,247 reports that showed no jobs but included
expended amounts approaching $1 billion
•
Instances of other reporting anomalies such as
discrepancies between award amounts and the
amounts reported as received which, although
relatively small in number, indicate problematic
issues in the reporting"

With all due respect to Mr Jennings lauding the OMB for "political braveness"...the problems in the reports were so glaringly obvious...the OMB really had no choice but to point out their existence. To do anything else would have made them a laughingstock.

Gee, you left this out:
"Data Reporting and Quality

While recipients GAO contacted appear
to have made good faith efforts to
ensure complete and accurate reporting, GAO’s fieldwork and initial review
and analysis of recipient data from www.recovery.gov, indicate that there are a
range of significant reporting and quality issues that need to be addressed."

And the OMB immediately made the changes the GAO recommended so only the first quarter reports were of lower quality:

Recommendations for Executive Action

To improve the consistency of FTE data collection and
reporting, OMB should (1) clarify the definition and
standardize the period of measurement for FTEs and
work with federal agencies to align this guidance with
OMB’s guidance and across agencies; (2) given its
reporting approach, consider being more explicit that
“jobs created or retained” are to be reported as hours
worked and paid for with Recovery Act funds; and (3)
continue working with federal agencies and encourage
them to provide or improve program-specific guidance
to assist recipients, especially as it applies to the full-
time equivalent calculation for individual programs.

What the OMB was pointing out in that VERY diplomatic statement is that the reports that had been filed by ACCA recipients were a disaster and that the Federal agencies in charge of monitoring those reports and providing guidance to those filling out the reports had done almost as bad a job at THAT as the recipients themselves!

OMB was hardly being "diplomatic!" They simply followed the advice of the GAO. Again the only report you can gripe about was the first quarter which I showed UNDERESTIMATED the number of jobs created or saved.

Again, Ed...the number of jobs created or saved would have only been UNDERESTIMATED if you followed their premise of a multiplier effect taking place...something which is totally debatable. As for that first quarter? The numbers were so badly over stated by the ACCA recipients it's hard to see how you could possibly end up underestimating how many jobs were created.

 

[Rshermr]

Uh, me lying troll, You just keep flopping around like a dying fish, making statements with no backup, no expert proof. Because you want so badly to prove what you have been told to believe. But what you say is never backed with anything. Just the "thoughts" of a food services worker. And worth every bit of ......NOTHING. So, why is it you think anyone should believe you??????

No backup? Georgie...I quoted the part of the ACCA that required those getting funds to file reports on how many jobs they created with the money they were given and you STILL continued to lie and say no such reports existed! You got caught in yet another lie...and once again you're trying to bluff your way out of it with blue ink and insults. It's what makes you one of the sleazier members of our board!

Yes, as you know, you provided no backup. You stated that there was a survey created by the acca. Your source said no such thing. It simply said there were required job surveys for the individual recipients. Just another lie from the king of Liars.

So when I provided the actual regulation in the ACCA requiring recipients file reports on how many jobs were created by the ACCA money they were granted...that didn't count as "backup"? What would...you blathering idiot?

The subject of what you were attempting to prove with your lies matters. As you know, dipshit, you were saying that I had suggested that there was a cbo report about the ACCA report on jobs. Which you stated. But which was untrue. There was no such ACCA report. You provided proof of recipients surveys. Those surveys only showed what an individual recipient of stimulus funds stated had occurred as a result of those funds. Not an ACCA report of overall results. Because such an ACCA report did not and could not exist.
What would??? Really, nothing, because you lied when you said there was an ACCA report. All you showed was that individual recipients had made surveys of their own, individual results. You blathering idiot. Actually, blathering lying idiot.

You really are one of the more CLUELESS people I've ever run across, Georgie! Which is code for more lies coming. With no doubt at all.
I asked you for the CBO report that you and Faun insisted existed because I knew that it DIDN'T exist!
Actually, all sorts of cbo reports exist. The fact that you can not enumerate what the report is about is your problem, and no other persons, me lying con troll.

Your claim that there was no ACCA report on jobs created with stimulus funds is obviously false.The acca, as I said, makes no report. I showed you the statute in the ACCA that REQUIRES such a report be filed. And you forgot to end your sentence, eh, Oldstyle. The report is required of companies getting the money from stimulus. Not from the ACCA itself. Which is what I said from the beginning. And have said multiple times. And which you can not dispute, because it is the truth, and what your source stated, me lying con troll.

That you are here still trying to argue that report doesn't exist is laughable!
That you are here and still trying to argue that a Acca report exists is laughable. As I have said multiple times. Here is the deal, me poor lying con troll. If the report exists, pleas show a report made by the acca (which is an act, dipshit). There are NO reports made by recipients except that tell you what they believe has been their results, for their company only. The CBO would never analyze single reports. So, you are lying again. And caught again.

You really can't admit you're wrong...can you?[

1. Yes I can, if I were wrong I would admit it quickly.
2. Since there is no ACCA report it is you that is wrong, which you will not admit.
3. You have been shown this multiple times, and still you come back and lie.
4. You are a total game player, and have no earthly value as a human being.
5. If you actually kew what the ACCA is, you would know that it is not possible for it to issue a report.
6. That you say that the ACCA does issue a report proves you are either butt stupid, or more likely, simply a liar.
7, The only reports are individual company summaries. Made by companies, not the ACCA, And for only one company in each case, not for all companies

So, the obvious conclusion is easy enough. You are trying to get people to believe what you want them to believe by lying, and you get caught doing so time after time. Then, your routine is to call others names and say you were proving something. But you are caught, and have been, time after time. And everyone agrees, you are just a simple con troll liar.