Thread: 10.2% Unemployment

Originally Posted by pugetsoundwa

I thought Repubs claimed the MSM was Liberal. If so why would they poke holes?????? Oops, looks like the MSM isn't Liberal after all, which I always knew. As far as bias, facts are facts reguardless of where they came from or who presents them.

Not sure what the point of this was. The MSM is Liberal, and they will be the first to admit it. They are poking holes in Obama's fibs because they can't not do it. Dishonesty isn't the same thing as being partial to the Liberals.

This is classic....

Newspapers rise and fact-check The Won

It began with the Associated Press: “The White House seized on an initial report from a government oversight board weeks ago that claimed federal contracts awarded to businesses under the recovery plan already had helped pay for more than 30,000 jobs. The administration said the number was evidence that the stimulus program had exceeded early expectations toward reaching the president’s promise of creating or saving 3.5 million jobs by the end of next year.

“But the 30,000 figure is overstated by thousands — at the very least by nearly 5,000, or one in six, based on AP’s limited review of some of the contracts — because some federal agencies and recipients of the money provided incorrect job counts. The review found some counts were more than 10 times as high as the actual number of jobs; some jobs were credited to stimulus spending when, in fact, none was produced.”

And it continued in California.

The Sacramento Bee: “Up to one-fourth of the 110,000 jobs reported as saved by federal stimulus money in California probably never were in danger, a Bee review has found… In a required state report to the federal government, the university system said the $268.5 million it received in stimulus funding through October allowed it to retain 26,156 employees.

“That total represents more than half of CSU’s statewide work force. However, university officials confirmed Thursday that half their workers were not going to be laid off without the stimulus dollars.”

And in Colorado.

The Denver Post: “The federal government reported Friday that Colorado created or saved 8,094 jobs through grants, loans and contracts funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Problem is, the figure is wrong, according to an analysis of recovery.gov data by The Denver Post. Although a Colorado Springs Head Start program reported it had created or preserved 269 jobs, the real number was three, according to an interview with a program manager.”

And in New York.

New York Times: “In June, the federal government spent $1,047 in stimulus money to buy a rider mower from the Toro Company to cut the grass at the Fayetteville National Cemetery in Arkansas. Now, a report on the government’s stimulus Web site improbably claims that that single lawn mower sale helped save or create 50 jobs.”

And in Georgia.

Atlanta Journal-Constitution: “The Associated Press exposed Wednesday how the Southwest Georgia Community Action Council in Moultrie reported that stimulus spending has saved 935 of its jobs, though only 508 people work there. Public records show the council reported receiving $187,440 in federal stimulus funds partly to fund pay raises and college scholarships for staff. The council issued a statement on its Web site Thursday, blaming the error on a misplaced decimal point. The number of jobs reported should have been 9.35, not 935, the statement says.”

And in Texas.

Dallas Morning News: “Reports that Texas has created or saved 19,752 jobs so far with stimulus funding appear to overstate the impact of the program, according to interviews and an analysis of government data. More than one-quarter of those jobs, or about 5,100, were summer positions for people 24 and younger… One tiny Navarro County town’s housing authority reported creating 450 jobs with a $26,174 grant, a claim that was obviously wrong but not fixed in time for last week’s reports. The city of Corpus Christi said the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development also questioned its claim that 195 jobs would be created by the construction of a child care center.”

And in South Carolina.

Greenville News: “In fact, the numbers that have come out of Washington relating to the efficacy of the stimulus bill have been either questionable or are flat-out wrong. About 8,100 jobs were created in South Carolina by the stimulus according to recovery.gov. The state Commerce Department puts the number at 3,497 jobs — less than half of what’s being touted. And more than half of those were in a summer youth employment program, according to the newspaper [USA Today] report.”

And in Florida, where Mike Synan of WDBO reported:

At the White House’s website on the stimulus package, it claims 129 jobs were saved in Cocoa Beach. Was that what really happened, or did employees just get raises? Those 129 jobs are at the Brevard Child Care Association, so I asked the Executive Director there, and got some hemming and hawing.

“No, uh, not, well saved/maintained. Maybe it’s a matter of semantics.”

Stimulus my eye. This was a partisan heist of a half trillion dollars as the Chicago gang raided the Treasury. They bet the economy would rebound on its own and they could take credit. But thievery on a banana republic scale spooked the market and undermined confidence in the American economy.

Now as unemployment surges past 10% on its way to who knows where — 15%? — the administration scrambled for cover. Lost in all the math is how paltry 650,000 jobs is in a nation of 15,700,000 unemployed people.

The press is starting to wake up, smell the incompetence and do the math.

Originally Posted by Obama's Empty Suit

Didn't each one of those "jobs" cost the taxpayer about $172,000 to create? Of course there weren't that many jobs created, but I'll play along.

Who has stimulated the economy? All I see is inflated numbers from cash for clunkers (which cost taxpayers $24,000 per car) that will come crashing down in Q4.

No, you fucking idiot. Jobs are just a manifestation of stimulating the economy. Let's say the economy was exactly $14 trillion on Jan 1, 2009. The GDP declined 6.4, which means that on a yearly basis it declined 6.4%. 6.4% divided by 4 = 1.6%. At the end of March, the economy wasn't exactly $14 trillion, it was $14 trillion - 1.6% of $14 trillion or $13.776 trillion. The economy lost $224 billion that would contribute to the economy and be taxed. In the second quarter the economy declined 0.7 or 0.175%. Now, the economy was $13.752 trillion. It lost $24 billion. In the third quarter it increased 3.5 or 0.875%. It increased $120 billion back to $13.872.

If you don't stimulate the economy and it keeps losing $224 billion or more every 3 months, you have lost about $1 trillion in a year. That means you have lost it and all the tax revenue, it will generate. You spend let's say $150 billion for the year and stimulate the economy by $1 trillion getting $300 billion back in taxes. In the course of doing so a million jobs are created. You have netted $150 billion and a million jobs over doing nothing.

Originally Posted by Gary

No, you fucking idiot. Jobs are just a manifestation of stimulating the economy. Let's say the economy was exactly $14 trillion on Jan 1, 2009. The GDP declined 6.4, which means that on a yearly basis it declined 6.4%. 6.4% divided by 4 = 1.6%. At the end of March, the economy wasn't exactly $14 trillion, it was $14 trillion - 1.6% of $14 trillion or $13.776 trillion. The economy lost $224 billion that would contribute to the economy and be taxed. In the second quarter the economy declined 0.7 or 0.175%. Now, the economy was $13.752 trillion. It lost $24 billion. In the third quarter it increased 3.5 or 0.875%. It increased $120 billion back to $13.872.

If you don't stimulate the economy and it keeps losing $224 billion or more every 3 months, you have lost about $1 trillion in a year. That means you have lost it and all the tax revenue, it will generate. You spend let's say $150 billion for the year and stimulate the economy by $1 trillion getting $300 billion back in taxes. In the course of doing so a million jobs are created. You have netted $150 billion and a million jobs over doing nothing.

Been tried before - doesn't work. And of course the only alternative is NOT 'doing nothing".

Originally Posted by Gary

No, you fucking idiot. Jobs are just a manifestation of stimulating the economy. Let's say the economy was exactly $14 trillion on Jan 1, 2009. The GDP declined 6.4, which means that on a yearly basis it declined 6.4%. 6.4% divided by 4 = 1.6%. At the end of March, the economy wasn't exactly $14 trillion, it was $14 trillion - 1.6% of $14 trillion or $13.776 trillion. The economy lost $224 billion that would contribute to the economy and be taxed. In the second quarter the economy declined 0.7 or 0.175%. Now, the economy was $13.752 trillion. It lost $24 billion. In the third quarter it increased 3.5 or 0.875%. It increased $120 billion back to $13.872.

If you don't stimulate the economy and it keeps losing $224 billion or more every 3 months, you have lost about $1 trillion in a year. That means you have lost it and all the tax revenue, it will generate. You spend let's say $150 billion for the year and stimulate the economy by $1 trillion getting $300 billion back in taxes. In the course of doing so a million jobs are created. You have netted $150 billion and a million jobs over doing nothing.

Since you're allowed to use the word "probably", then so will I.

If Obama had done absolutely nothing, then the economy "probably" would have recovered much quicker without all the new government borrowing that sewed up the credit that businesses need to grow.

Again, there's that word "probably".
.
.

If Obama really wanted to stimulate the economy he would have cut taxes.

Originally Posted by Bill E. Bob

If Obama really wanted to stimulate the economy he would have cut taxes.

EXACTLY CORRECT. Since he doesn't know anything about economics, he's doing exactly the wrong thing, and the recession will drag out his whole term.

Originally Posted by Rick

Been tried before - doesn't work. And of course the only alternative is NOT 'doing nothing".

Your ways have been tried before. It was called the Great Depression. You are too simple minded to know if it works or not.

Originally Posted by Robinette Broadhead

Since you're allowed to use the word "probably", then so will I.

If Obama had done absolutely nothing, then the economy "probably" would have recovered much quicker without all the new government borrowing that sewed up the credit that businesses need to grow.

Again, there's that word "probably".
.
.

That is total nonsense. If they did nothing the recovery would be way behind and they would have lost more tax revenue than they lost. If they didn't have a bailout, the world would be in Depression at this time. They would have lost more money from FDIC insurance claims than the TARP costed.

Originally Posted by Gary

Your ways have been tried before. It was called the Great Depression. You are too simple minded to know if it works or not.

Your powers of creating revisionist history are truly amazing, GayRay!

The Depression became a depression because the government threw good money after bad. So when the house of cards finally came tumbling down, it was a monster of a crash. FDR's policies only made it worse and last longer, and we didn't really come out of it until WW2.

Hmm... Good money after bad... Sounds much like today.
.
.