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

[SFC Ollie]

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

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

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

Did the Stimulus Create Jobs? | FactCheck.org

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

I have this problem believing what people tell me in newspapers and on the web when i see things like what was done here.
$180,000 from the stimulus was spent to open a city swimming pool for 10 weeks. Now how many great jobs did that create? And what the hell did they spend $18,000 a week on?
Then you get into saved jobs? Remember some of the first jobs Obama claimed the stimulus saved? 25 Police cadets who graduated in Columbus Ohio. They started their training 6 months before the asshole was elected. But he saved their jobs? Bull Shit.

And I don't pretend to be some great economist but I do not see a stable economy either.

 

[Cuyo]

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

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

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

Did the Stimulus Create Jobs? | FactCheck.org

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

I have this problem believing what people tell me in newspapers and on the web when i see things like what was done here.
$180,000 from the stimulus was spent to open a city swimming pool for 10 weeks. Now how many great jobs did that create? And what the hell did they spend $18,000 a week on?
Then you get into saved jobs? Remember some of the first jobs Obama claimed the stimulus saved? 25 Police cadets who graduated in Columbus Ohio. They started their training 6 months before the asshole was elected. But he saved their jobs? Bull Shit.

And I don't pretend to be some great economist but I do not see a stable economy either.

I'm not going to spend a lot of time defending the Act. It included some money appropriated in ways I didn't approve of, either. And yes the economy has seen better days.

However, a massive spending bill was necessary and would have been passed regardless of who was sitting in the WH... And it would have contained everyone-and-their-mother's little pet projects, because unfortunately that's how our quid-pro-quo system works these days.

Nevertheless, it's easy to forget just how precipitous the situation was in late 08/early 09, and hard to imagine what would have happened if we'd done nothing. Massive economic contraction, massive poverty, both immediate and widespread.

But a statement like

The stimulus was not meant to create jobs. It was nothing more than a grab bag for liberal spending.

is either partisan dishonesty, or incredibly un-enlightened, or both.

 

[Trajan]

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

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

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

Did the Stimulus Create Jobs? | FactCheck.org

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

As we have written before, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office released a report in August that said the stimulus bill has "[l]owered the unemployment rate by between 0.7 percentage points and 1.8 percentage points" and "ncreased the number of people employed by between 1.4 million and 3.3 million."

Simply put, more people would be unemployed if not for the stimulus bill. The exact number of jobs created and saved is difficult to estimate, but nonpartisan economists say there’s no doubt that the number is positive.

I have no doubt it saved jobs, that is the feds made simple transfer payments which is all it amounted to, it has kept folks who would have been laid off in work.

Thats a double edge sword, MANY of these jobs are state and cty. jobs, i.e. subsidized now by fed. tax dollars, which of course means once that stimulus goes away absent a economy that is generating higher revenue for these states/counties etc. leaves them right back at square one, to few dollars to pay to many people.

As far as created jobs , sure, it created some jobs, if the CBO estimate that has a HUGE error of margin and then is followed by what is basically a disclaimer, gives you a warm and fuzzy, well, what can I say, you have more faith than I do.

And, they do not address another key issue, cost per job. Given enough money anyone can 'create' or 'save' jobs....the key is where are we when the stimulus ends....which is , well for all practical purposes, now.

Stabilizing the economy? well since they have told us now that the recession ended in july 2009, what do you cal what we are in now? I call it life support...yea were stabilized I guess but to what extent? In fact banking is not stabilized, housing is not stabilized, the jobs market is not stabilized,( close maybe )........where do we go from here?


quick chart-

During the average recovery since World War II, gross domestic product (GDP) surpassed the pre-recession high five quarters after the recession began. It has never taken longer than seven quarters. Yet today, after 11 quarters, GDP is still below what it was in the fourth quarter of 2007. The economy is growing at only about a third of the rate of previous postwar recoveries from major recessions.


Phil Gramm: Echoes of the Great Depression - WSJ.com

 

[Charles_Main]

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

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

Did the Stimulus Create Jobs? | FactCheck.org

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

LOL those are "saved or created" jobs, and such things as census workers were counted to pad the number.

now they are counting Poll workers as a created job.

Nice eh.

Based on your response, I don't believe you understand what "The stimulus" actually was/is.

Yeah sure.

 

[Charles_Main]

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

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

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

Did the Stimulus Create Jobs? | FactCheck.org

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

I have this problem believing what people tell me in newspapers and on the web when i see things like what was done here.
$180,000 from the stimulus was spent to open a city swimming pool for 10 weeks. Now how many great jobs did that create? And what the hell did they spend $18,000 a week on?
Then you get into saved jobs? Remember some of the first jobs Obama claimed the stimulus saved? 25 Police cadets who graduated in Columbus Ohio. They started their training 6 months before the asshole was elected. But he saved their jobs? Bull Shit.

And I don't pretend to be some great economist but I do not see a stable economy either.

Here 22 Million in stimulus funds were used to extend a road 1/2 mile. granted over a steep ass hill.

The kicker is those who did get some TEMPORARY work from that project were all from over 250 Miles away. Because we don't have a union road construction company around here.

Your Stimulus funds at work.

 

[Meister]

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

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

Did the Stimulus Create Jobs? | FactCheck.org

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

I have this problem believing what people tell me in newspapers and on the web when i see things like what was done here.
$180,000 from the stimulus was spent to open a city swimming pool for 10 weeks. Now how many great jobs did that create? And what the hell did they spend $18,000 a week on?
Then you get into saved jobs? Remember some of the first jobs Obama claimed the stimulus saved? 25 Police cadets who graduated in Columbus Ohio. They started their training 6 months before the asshole was elected. But he saved their jobs? Bull Shit.

And I don't pretend to be some great economist but I do not see a stable economy either.

I'm not going to spend a lot of time defending the Act. It included some money appropriated in ways I didn't approve of, either. And yes the economy has seen better days.

However, a massive spending bill was necessary and would have been passed regardless of who was sitting in the WH... And it would have contained everyone-and-their-mother's little pet projects, because unfortunately that's how our quid-pro-quo system works these days.

Nevertheless, it's easy to forget just how precipitous the situation was in late 08/early 09, and hard to imagine what would have happened if we'd done nothing. Massive economic contraction, massive poverty, both immediate and widespread.

But a statement like

The stimulus was not meant to create jobs. It was nothing more than a grab bag for liberal spending.

is either partisan dishonesty, or incredibly un-enlightened, or both.

The stimulus was a grab bag for union jobs, the money spent was for union wage jobs. If it had been spent properly there would have been twice as many jobs created with the same amount of money.
The amount of jobs created...is very subjective at best, and jobs saved....what a bunch of bullshit from the administration. They can't put a number on that....except for propaganda. Your going to believe what you want....but it just doesn't add up.

 

[Meister]

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

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

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

Did the Stimulus Create Jobs? | FactCheck.org

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

LOL those are "saved or created" jobs, and such things as census workers were counted to pad the number.
now they are counting Poll workers as a created job.

Nice eh.

Census workers were hired and laid off, and hired again. Each time they rehired the same census worker for the same job it was another job created. So by the end of the census work you could have had 3-5 "jobs created" for the one job. I guess it comes down to "what ever gets you through the night, is alright" with this administrations shell game.

 

[Charles_Main]

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

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

Did the Stimulus Create Jobs? | FactCheck.org

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

LOL those are "saved or created" jobs, and such things as census workers were counted to pad the number.
now they are counting Poll workers as a created job.

Nice eh.

Census workers were hired and laid off, and hired again. Each time they rehired the same census worker for the same job it was another job created. So by the end of the census work you could have had 3-5 "jobs created" for the one job. I guess it comes down to "what ever gets you through the night, is alright" with this administrations shell game.

You don't have to tell me. My wife applied to work for the census, and then was called repeatedly even though she told them the first time they called she had found another job.

Now those fuckers are for the first time EVER. Treating Poll workers as employees instead of independent contractors. So they can count them as Created Jobs.

This is one of the most dishonest administrations we have ever had, and they are not even good at lying.

 

[Ozmar]

It's not really much of an admission. Short of another "new deal," the government hasn't much control over such things...

 

[Ozmar]

LOL those are "saved or created" jobs, and such things as census workers were counted to pad the number.
now they are counting Poll workers as a created job.

Nice eh.

Census workers were hired and laid off, and hired again. Each time they rehired the same census worker for the same job it was another job created. So by the end of the census work you could have had 3-5 "jobs created" for the one job. I guess it comes down to "what ever gets you through the night, is alright" with this administrations shell game.

You don't have to tell me. My wife applied to work for the census, and then was called repeatedly even though she told them the first time they called she had found another job.

Now those fuckers are for the first time EVER. Treating Poll workers as employees instead of independent contractors. So they can count them as Created Jobs.

This is one of the most dishonest administrations we have ever had, and they are not even good at lying.

Would you like some cheese to go with that?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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

Ollie you and I and most with any common sense realize that. But that was the reason obama and company wanted the stimulus.

In other words the obamabots were punked, pawned and toyed with by obama and to them that is a good thing.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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

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

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

Did the Stimulus Create Jobs? | FactCheck.org

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

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

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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

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

Did the Stimulus Create Jobs? | FactCheck.org

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

LOL those are "saved or created" jobs, and such things as census workers were counted to pad the number.

now they are counting Poll workers as a created job.

Nice eh.

Based on your response, I don't believe you understand what "The stimulus" actually was/is. Start by reading the Factcheck article I linked.

BTW, Big Red, at your OP. Intellectual dishonesty at its finest.

Now look who's talking about being dishonest. A person who uses a avatar of a BIG FAT HAIRY RAT. Some call them guinea pigs but they are stile a fancy rat.

 

[Cuyo]

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

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

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

Did the Stimulus Create Jobs? | FactCheck.org

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

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

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

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

 

[Charles_Main]

Census workers were hired and laid off, and hired again. Each time they rehired the same census worker for the same job it was another job created. So by the end of the census work you could have had 3-5 "jobs created" for the one job. I guess it comes down to "what ever gets you through the night, is alright" with this administrations shell game.

You don't have to tell me. My wife applied to work for the census, and then was called repeatedly even though she told them the first time they called she had found another job.

Now those fuckers are for the first time EVER. Treating Poll workers as employees instead of independent contractors. So they can count them as Created Jobs.

This is one of the most dishonest administrations we have ever had, and they are not even good at lying.

Would you like some cheese to go with that?

Do you have any substance to add or are you just here to make jokes

I take it you must think it is cool they are counting POLL workers as created jobs eh.

 

[Meister]

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

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

Did the Stimulus Create Jobs? | FactCheck.org

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hmmm.....very interesting

 

[Cuyo]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hmmm.....very interesting

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

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

Wait, is the CBO biased now too?

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

 

[Charles_Main]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hmmm.....very interesting

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

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

Wait, is the CBO biased now too?

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

Well, when ever someone on the right uses the CBO as a source, someone on the left tells us it is Biased.

 

[saveliberty]

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

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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

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