Stimulus jobs overstated by thousands

Pez wrote:

LTRT wrote:

Pez wrote:I will concede that the administration projected that unemployment would not go over 8%, but thats a far cry from any kind of guarantee.

And I project that we won't get over 8" of snow this season. I'm not promising it and I'm not even saying it, I'm writing it. "thats a far cry from any kind of guarantee"

Me thinks you're trying to split that hair again.

You're point is well taken, however I was speaking specifically about Kroman's astute comment that Obama said if we pass the stimulus employment would not go above 8%... If you take a what was a report prepared by the administration that has estimates and projections related to unemployment, and construe that to say that it was some sort of promise uttered by Obama himself is a far bigger stretch than I am making.

Obama isnt exactly landing the fighter jet on the carrier deck either.

Well let's beat meta's horse a little more.

When/if the stimulus money was approved it was to create 3 million jobs. Then it was to create and save 3 million jobs. Now you are saying it was just to make the company money and whether or not jobs were saved or created?

Yeah he ain't landing on the carrier deck; he never made it to the ship.

‘Jobs Created or Saved’ Is White House Fantasy
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&sid=aUuHhaDx8Hr8

Of course today, after all of the hubbub on the fudged numbers, word is the WH is going to announce that the stimulus "has created and saved at least 1 million jobs".

The title of the article says it all!

LTRT wrote:‘Jobs Created or Saved’ Is White House Fantasy
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&sid=aUuHhaDx8Hr8

Of course today, after all of the hubbub on the fudged numbers, word is the WH is going to announce that the stimulus "has created and saved at least 1 million jobs".

The title of the article says it all!

So did you read it all? I really think the title is lame, and doesn't describe the article commentary very well. Meh, I'm more of a news guy myself. That's why they say "opinions are like..."

“If you take your foot off the gas, the car goes from 60 back down to a slow crawl,” Romer said in clarifying blog post.

(Baum) Gentlemen, start your engines.

Vroom, Vroom. Anyone here actually have a horse in this race?

While the WH continues to put their best spin on the numbers, it doesn't do a thing for the millions who are out of work.

You want news, here's some that's not opinion. (and no, I didn't read every word of the 30 pgs)

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf

LTRT wrote:While the WH continues to put their best spin on the numbers, it doesn't do a thing for the millions who are out of work.

You want news, here's some that's not opinion. (and no, I didn't read every word of the 30 pgs)

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf

Good move.. (throw a boring pile of statistics at me...)

"there were 706,000 discouraged workers in September" - not looking for work because they believe no jobs are available for them apparently the 15.1 million others are happily unemployed... or at least determined!

If it means anything to y'all, It's difficult for me to see hope in this report.

Pez wrote:No... he didnt really... While that is certainly a GOP talking point, Obama himself never said it, never framed it in terms of a promise. I know the document you are referring to, and it was a chart that stated where unemployment would be with and without the stimulus. Obama's staff prepared the document, and it contained the unemployment projections... hardly promises.

If you find a reliable source that reports Obama actually said that, I will stand humbly corrected.

Here's a snippet of an article...

By now, according to earlier White House economic models, the nation's unemployment rate should be on the decline. The forecasts used to drum up support for the plan projected today's unemployment would be about 8 percent. Instead, it sits at 9.4 percent, the highest in more than 25 years.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/08/obamas-stimulus-promise-m_n_212420.html

.... from no other than the liberal huffingtonpost. You are splitting hairs Pez. This ain't no GOP talking point. This comes straight from the administration's mouth. In other words, the buck stops with Obama.

From the article:

"Now we're in a position to really accelerate," Obama said.

Without naming names, Obama shot back at skeptics during the Cabinet meeting.

"Now, I know that there's some who, despite all evidence to the contrary, still don't believe in the necessity and promise of this recovery act."

"And I would suggest to them that they talk to the companies who, because of this plan, scrapped the idea of laying off employees and, in fact, decided to hire employees. Tell that to the Americans who received that unexpected call saying, 'Come back to work.'"

You tell'em boss.

LTRT wrote:From the article:

"Now we're in a position to really accelerate," Obama said.

Obama admitted his own dissatisfaction with the progress but said his administration would ramp up stimulus spending in the coming months. The White House acknowledged it has spent only $44 billion, or 5 percent, of the $787 billion stimulus, but that total has always been expected to rise sharply this summer.

"Now we're in a position to really accelerate," Obama said.

He also repeated an earlier promise to create or save 600,000 jobs by the end of the summer.

So you want him to spend money faster to create your "promised" jobs... wait, what about our kids, the defecit, etc.?

... buncha whiny bitches. Decide what it is you'll be satisfied with! You want fiscal-spending conservatism and economic stimulus, but no matter which way it's done, its unsatisfactory according to your hindsight guesstimulation?

Didn't mean to make you pop a gasket at 5p on a Friday.....

"lighten up Francis"

meta4 wrote:

LTRT wrote:From the article:

"Now we're in a position to really accelerate," Obama said.

Obama admitted his own dissatisfaction with the progress but said his administration would ramp up stimulus spending in the coming months. The White House acknowledged it has spent only $44 billion, or 5 percent, of the $787 billion stimulus, but that total has always been expected to rise sharply this summer.

"Now we're in a position to really accelerate," Obama said.

He also repeated an earlier promise to create or save 600,000 jobs by the end of the summer.

So you want him to spend money faster to create your "promised" jobs... wait, what about our kids, the defecit, etc.?

... buncha whiny bitches. Decide what it is you'll be satisfied with! You want fiscal-spending conservatism and economic stimulus, but no matter which way it's done, its unsatisfactory according to your hindsight guesstimulation?

We all can't be as smart and as all-knowing as you meta. I bow in the presense of greatness.

meta4 wrote:

LTRT wrote:From the article:

"Now we're in a position to really accelerate," Obama said.

Obama admitted his own dissatisfaction with the progress but said his administration would ramp up stimulus spending in the coming months. The White House acknowledged it has spent only $44 billion, or 5 percent, of the $787 billion stimulus, but that total has always been expected to rise sharply this summer.

"Now we're in a position to really accelerate," Obama said.

He also repeated an earlier promise to create or save 600,000 jobs by the end of the summer.

So you want him to spend money faster to create your "promised" jobs... wait, what about our kids, the defecit, etc.?

... buncha whiny bitches. Decide what it is you'll be satisfied with! You want fiscal-spending conservatism and economic stimulus, but no matter which way it's done, its unsatisfactory according to your hindsight guesstimulation?

Only problem I had with the stimulus was it didn't spend money on things that would grow the economy. Most of it was for "feel good" projects not create job projects.

So if you're going to run up the deficit and call it a jobs program. Then spend it on things that will add jobs. And if you want specifics then look at my previous posts back in January where I pointed out the non job items in the package.

What do we know. We're just whiny bitches.

Markwes wrote:What do we know. We're just whiny bitches.

I think the more appropiate thing to say is,

what did we know and when did we know it.

LTRT wrote:Didn't mean to make you pop a gasket at 5p on a Friday.....

"lighten up Francis"

What did I use all caps? All my gaskets are still intact. Even if I had, I wouldn't give you all the credit anyhow.

meta4 wrote:

LTRT wrote:Didn't mean to make you pop a gasket at 5p on a Friday.....

"lighten up Francis"

What did I use all caps? All my gaskets are still intact. Even if I had, I wouldn't give you all the credit anyhow.

Musta been the 'whiny b' thing that threw me...there I go thinkin' again.

Markwes wrote:What do we know. We're just whiny bitches.

All, I'm not directing my comments towards you's guys' personally, if it's going to bruise your wittle feewings ... it's just ironic to hear grown men call our president a "whiner" and a "titty baby" (Imus) while they sit around and nitpick the use of "created or saved" when the issue is nuanced by using numbers reported by the employers. Ironic, that it continues...

Scooby, that January list was good. I didn't see it followed by a list of "shovel ready" employers who sought money with the specific plan to create jobs with Federal money. If it had, I'd scrutinize that list as companies that were already looking for a handout.

Too bad the government doesn't own more of the automotive, banking, health care, and education sectors of our economy, it could funnel stimulus money right down the pipes and immediately create jobs. The biggest issue I saw with the January list -- too many hands in a mad grab for the money before the shovel ready project began.

How can the federal government get money into peoples hands fast enough to create jobs (that will be correctly reported) and be perceived as a benefit by at least a few million people?

LTRT wrote:Musta been the 'whiny b' thing that threw me...there I go thinkin' again.

Ok, I guess that might have been a little harsh. I'll make it more "fluffy" for ya next time.

meta4 wrote:

Markwes wrote:What do we know. We're just whiny bitches.

All, I'm not directing my comments towards you's guys' personally, if it's going to bruise your wittle feewings ... it's just ironic to hear grown men call our president a "whiner" and a "titty baby" (Imus) while they sit around and nitpick the use of "created or saved" when the issue is nuanced by using numbers reported by the employers. Ironic, that it continues...

Someone has sensitive as you are should know better.

meta4 wrote:

LTRT wrote:Musta been the 'whiny b' thing that threw me...there I go thinkin' again.

Ok, I guess that might have been a little harsh. I'll make it more "fluffy" for ya next time.

You're full of fluff.

White House says employment will continue to lag
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/white-house-says-employment-will-continue-to-lag-2009-11-03-1115350

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) -- Job creation will continue to lag even as the economy recovers, White House budget director Peter Orszag warned Tuesday. In remarks prepared for delivery at New York University, Orszag said the United States is "somewhere between" the stages when hours worked increase and additional workers are hired. Orszag also repeated that President Barack Obama is committed to cutting the deficit and that health-care reform won't add to the deficit.

"somewhere between", oh that's nice. In other words, to all those who are waiting for a job....keep waiting.

What 'recovery' is this guy talking about, gimme some of what's he's smoking.

Maybe he's talking about the growth in GDP?

Pez wrote:Maybe he's talking about the growth in GDP?

You think the 4th qtr will be as rosy as was the 3rd?

LTRT wrote:

Pez wrote:Maybe he's talking about the growth in GDP?

You think the 4th qtr will be as rosy as was the 3rd?

I didnt say the 3rd quarter was rosy... if you believe that then why are you asking me what he's talking about by recovery?

Pez wrote:

LTRT wrote:

Pez wrote:Maybe he's talking about the growth in GDP?

You think the 4th qtr will be as rosy as was the 3rd?

I didnt say the 3rd quarter was rosy... if you believe that then why are you asking me what he's talking about by recovery?

I knew what he was referring to, just being facetious in my post.

hehe... gotcha... badumpum...