Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I read the article and still don't know what your complaint is. If you think their numbers were wrong, where does the article say that? It does indicate coming up with a number can be difficult but I don't see any other numbers in their indicating the numbers posted were wrong.Read the article and it will explain to you what's "wrong" with the claim that 640,000 jobs were created or saved!
I read the article and still don't know what your complaint is. If you think their numbers were wrong, where does the article say that? It does indicate coming up with a number can be difficult but I don't see any other numbers in their indicating the numbers posted were wrong.Read the article and it will explain to you what's "wrong" with the claim that 640,000 jobs were created or saved!
Do you ever stop lying, ya con tool? Ever??I read the article and still don't know what your complaint is. If you think their numbers were wrong, where does the article say that? It does indicate coming up with a number can be difficult but I don't see any other numbers in their indicating the numbers posted were wrong.Read the article and it will explain to you what's "wrong" with the claim that 640,000 jobs were created or saved!
Pair that article stating that the government was having difficulty coming up with correct numbers with the article that shows how government used accounting "tricks" to make it appear that many more jobs had been created than actually were, Faun! My main purpose for including it however is the quote stating that you can't find the term "jobs saved" in any economics text book because quite frankly it hadn't existed before the Obama Administration coined it to obscure how many jobs were actually created by the Obama Stimulus!
Do you ever stop lying, ya con tool? Ever??I read the article and still don't know what your complaint is. If you think their numbers were wrong, where does the article say that? It does indicate coming up with a number can be difficult but I don't see any other numbers in their indicating the numbers posted were wrong.Read the article and it will explain to you what's "wrong" with the claim that 640,000 jobs were created or saved!
Pair that article stating that the government was having difficulty coming up with correct numbers with the article that shows how government used accounting "tricks" to make it appear that many more jobs had been created than actually were, Faun! My main purpose for including it however is the quote stating that you can't find the term "jobs saved" in any economics text book because quite frankly it hadn't existed before the Obama Administration coined it to obscure how many jobs were actually created by the Obama Stimulus!
I already showed you the Bush administration used the term. So yes, not only had it existed -- but it was used by the previous president.
Your lying aside, you offered nothing to discount that 640,000 figure, so the only conclusion I can reach is that it probably is within range of how many jobs were created and/or saved.
"The trillion dollar 'stimulus' isn't working, and no amount of phony statistics can change that," said House Republican Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio. OK. You could not find a further right source. Let me see what Ried has to say. Nah. I have integrity. Dipshit."The president and his economic team promised the 'stimulus' would create jobs 'immediately' and unemployment would stay below 8%. But America has lost more than three million jobs since then, and the unemployment rate is nearing double digits."Did you miss the whole part where I showed Anton that the Obama White House was using that 3 million jobs saved number a year before the CBO came out with their estimate?
That's when he left...idiot child! LOL
I can't believe this is still going.
I'll give it one more try, one more time only.
Oldstyle, it is very simple - the numbers administration used are legitimate, un-made-up numbers confirmed by estimates CBO did. Your argumentation that they were somehow simply made up by administration is BS, no ifs, no butts.
Time to learn it and move on with your life, because when you deny the obvious you make yourself look like a idiot. Why are you so hell bent on making yourself look that way?
You want to make non-idiot argument against stimulus? Here it is, listen up:
Stimulus, and other expansionary policies Obama administration put in place during recession did in fact make for a significant jobs increase since he has been in office, these policies however have come at expense of aggravating our long term problems. The money we burrowed yesterday caused jobs, but the interest and eventual settling of the debt will ultimately cost even more jobs due to contractionary policies (increasing taxes and/or cutting spending) needed to repay it.
Yes, this is what sane, fact respecting, economically sound, conservative argument looks like - and because of those fine qualities we will rarely hear it from our challenged friends on the right.
Wonderful! Since you contend that the numbers the Obama Administration came up with for "Jobs Saved" are legitimate and un-made-up...you should have no problem at all providing the formula that was used to arrive at those numbers...right?
You folks on the left keep declaring that "Jobs Saved" is a verifiable number...yet none of you can give me the formula that one would use to arrive at that "verified" total! There's a reason for that, Anton and it's because the numbers aren't legitimate...it's because they were manufactured. Obama's economists plugged in whatever number of jobs saved that they needed to make the jobs created number look acceptable...called the fiction that they'd created "Jobs Created or Saved" and sold it to a gullible public.
Wonderful! Since you contend that the numbers the Obama Administration came up with for "Jobs Saved" are not legitimate and made-up...you should have no problem at all providing a source with economic credentials and that is impartial to back up your allegations.
You folks on the right keep declaring that "Jobs Saved" is an un-verifiable number...you keep asking for a formula you say does not exist. Any concept of how stupid that makes you look?Now oldstyle says "There's a reason for that, Anton and it's because the numbers aren't legitimate...it's because they were manufactured. Obama's economists plugged in whatever number of jobs saved that they needed to make the jobs created number look acceptable...called the fiction that they'd created "Jobs Created or Saved" and sold it to a gullible public." But Oldstyle can find no source to prove his accusations. And they remain just the argument of a ignorant food services employee and ignorant con troll. Makes oldstyle a total waste of space.
The Myth of the Multiplier
Why the stimulus package hasn't reduced unemployment
[/QUOTE]"The trillion dollar 'stimulus' isn't working, and no amount of phony statistics can change that," said House Republican Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio. OK. You could not find a further right source. Let me see what Ried has to say. Nah. I have integrity. Dipshit."The president and his economic team promised the 'stimulus' would create jobs 'immediately' and unemployment would stay below 8%. But America has lost more than three million jobs since then, and the unemployment rate is nearing double digits."Did you miss the whole part where I showed Anton that the Obama White House was using that 3 million jobs saved number a year before the CBO came out with their estimate?
That's when he left...idiot child! LOL
I can't believe this is still going.
I'll give it one more try, one more time only.
Oldstyle, it is very simple - the numbers administration used are legitimate, un-made-up numbers confirmed by estimates CBO did. Your argumentation that they were somehow simply made up by administration is BS, no ifs, no butts.
Time to learn it and move on with your life, because when you deny the obvious you make yourself look like a idiot. Why are you so hell bent on making yourself look that way?
You want to make non-idiot argument against stimulus? Here it is, listen up:
Stimulus, and other expansionary policies Obama administration put in place during recession did in fact make for a significant jobs increase since he has been in office, these policies however have come at expense of aggravating our long term problems. The money we burrowed yesterday caused jobs, but the interest and eventual settling of the debt will ultimately cost even more jobs due to contractionary policies (increasing taxes and/or cutting spending) needed to repay it.
Yes, this is what sane, fact respecting, economically sound, conservative argument looks like - and because of those fine qualities we will rarely hear it from our challenged friends on the right.
Wonderful! Since you contend that the numbers the Obama Administration came up with for "Jobs Saved" are legitimate and un-made-up...you should have no problem at all providing the formula that was used to arrive at those numbers...right?
You folks on the left keep declaring that "Jobs Saved" is a verifiable number...yet none of you can give me the formula that one would use to arrive at that "verified" total! There's a reason for that, Anton and it's because the numbers aren't legitimate...it's because they were manufactured. Obama's economists plugged in whatever number of jobs saved that they needed to make the jobs created number look acceptable...called the fiction that they'd created "Jobs Created or Saved" and sold it to a gullible public.
Wonderful! Since you contend that the numbers the Obama Administration came up with for "Jobs Saved" are not legitimate and made-up...you should have no problem at all providing a source with economic credentials and that is impartial to back up your allegations.
You folks on the right keep declaring that "Jobs Saved" is an un-verifiable number...you keep asking for a formula you say does not exist. Any concept of how stupid that makes you look?Now oldstyle says "There's a reason for that, Anton and it's because the numbers aren't legitimate...it's because they were manufactured. Obama's economists plugged in whatever number of jobs saved that they needed to make the jobs created number look acceptable...called the fiction that they'd created "Jobs Created or Saved" and sold it to a gullible public." But Oldstyle can find no source to prove his accusations. And they remain just the argument of a ignorant food services employee and ignorant con troll. Makes oldstyle a total waste of space.
Posting republican political officials means nothing, me boy. We are al used to their 24/7/365 attacks.
Boehner also pointed to a memo from Carnegie Mellon professor Allan Meltzer, who said that the White House is misleading the nation by saying the Recovery Act has saved jobs.
"Visiting Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute"
The Arena: - Allan Meltzer Bio
So, you have no idea what an impartial source is, do you, Oldstyle?
"One can search economic textbooks forever without finding a concept called 'jobs saved,' " wrote Meltzer, who served as an economic adviser under President Ronald Reagan. "It doesn't exist for good reason: how can anyone know that his or her job has been saved?"Stimulus creates 640,000 jobs - White House says - Oct. 30, 2009
Thank you, me boy, for proving my point. You stay in the bat shit crazy sites and use conservative sources and call them impartial. Because you are a lying con troll. No surprise, and nothing learned. Just Oldstyle being what he is.
In the face of multiple economic groups that are considered impartial, Oldstyle picks quotes from a republican past speaker of the house. Because he could not find a more partial source. Except he then picked a quote from Allan Meltzer, a visiting professor at the american enterprise institute., and well know con. Great, oldstyle, thanks for proving me correct and showing what you are. Which is, of course, a JOKE.
The Myth of the Multiplier
Why the stimulus package hasn't reduced unemployment
Oldstyle you have said previously that you agree that it is ludicrous to suggest that 800 billion could be spent without making some jobs.
You now post an opinion making this ludicrous claim.
So I'm just curious, did you change your mind and decide to go with ludicrous or are you so dysfunctional that this blatant contradiction to common sense didn't even register in your one-thing-at-a-time mind?
Felix Salmon
How the government fudges job statistics
By Felix Salmon
February 17, 2010
In the Marketplace letters segment yesterday, Representative Peter DeFazio (D-Oregon) took issue with me saying that infrastructure investment is an extremely expensive way of creating jobs and "costs a good $200,000 per job". Just as well I didn't use the $1 million figure here, which I stand by, and which was fact-checked by the Atlantic! " data-share-img="" data-share="twitter,facebook,linkedin,reddit,google,mail" data-share-count="false">
Tags:
employment
In the Marketplace letters segment yesterday, Representative Peter DeFazio (D-Oregon) took issue with me saying that infrastructure investment is an extremely expensive way of creating jobs and “costs a good $200,000 per job”. Just as well I didn’t use the $1 million figure here, which I stand by, and which was fact-checked by the Atlantic!
The host, Kai Ryssdal, had no time to read out the letter in full, but has allowed me to reprint it:
Dear Mr. Ryssdal:
I have always enjoyed your show and have enjoyed past opportunities to discuss issues as your guest. However, I was distressed last Friday to hear a purported expert guest, Reuters blogger Felix Salmon, state with great certainty that infrastructure investment is an inefficient jobs creator because those jobs are so expensive to create. To back up his argument he claimed that it costs $200,000 to create one infrastructure job. However, he provided no source for this claim and you failed to challenge his assertion.
The Council of Economic Advisors has estimated that $92,000 in direct government spending creates one job-year, regardless of the sector of the economy. The U.S. Department of Transportation, arguably the most knowledgeable government agency when it comes to transportation spending and the resulting job creation, states that an investment of $35,941 creates one infrastructure-related job. Those two confirmable estimates are a far cry from the dubious $200,000-per-job claim from Mr. Salmon. Unfortunately Mr. Salmon’s assertion went unchallenged while the other guest, Heidi Moore of The Big Money, seemed to tacitly agree with him.
I am particularly sensitive about this issue since the AP ran an article last month on an “analysis” by AP reporters that used incomplete information to draw inaccurate and misleading conclusions about the success of the transportation infrastructure component of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). The article claimed that “a surge in spending on roads and bridges has had no effect on local unemployment ” based on the reporters’ finding that “local unemployment rates rose and fell regardless of how much stimulus money Washington poured out for transportation.” However, instead of examining the impact of ARRA’s transportation investment on jobs in the transportation industry – an appropriate comparison – the reporters compared the transportation funding, which comprised only 6 percent of spending in the Recovery Act, to the overall unemployment rate. This led to a specious conclusion and ignores the fact that transportation projects funded by ARRA have created or sustained more than 250,000 direct, on-project jobs, with payroll expenditures of $1.3 billion.
I continue to support infrastructure investment as both a justified investment that future generations will benefit from as well as one of the most efficient creators of jobs, contrary to the beliefs of purported experts like Mr. Salmon and the so-called investigative reporters from the AP. I hope you will set the record straight. If you would like to discuss this further you can contact me directly at [redacted].
Sincerely,
Peter A. DeFazio, M.C.
Chairman, Subcommittee on Highways and Transit
(In case you were wondering, the “M.C.” just means Member of Congress.)
I have no dog in DeFazio’s fight with the AP. But his attacks on me are just plain wrong. Infrastructure investments are simply not “one of the most efficient creators of jobs”, no matter how much DeFazio might want them to be, and the sources he cites to back up that claim don’t support it.
What’s at issue here is a ratio: I’m talking about dollars per job created. To get that number, you take the number of dollars spent, and divide it by the number of jobs created. DeFazio, by contrast, subtly tries to change the denominator when he says that “$92,000 in direct government spending creates one job-year”: he’s taking dollars, dividing by jobs created, and then dividing again by the number of years that each job is expected to last.
In the real world, of course, if you spend $300,000 to create a job which lasts three years, then that’s one job created with your $300,000, not three jobs. Only in DC would people attempt to claim that their $300,000 had created three “job-years”.
What’s more, the $92,000 estimate covers government spending in general, not just infrastructure spending. Infrastructure spending gets you low bang for the buck, in terms of job creation, compared to other kinds of spending — my example on the show was arts subsidies. A lot of government spending goes on creating new federal jobs: you get much more job creation per buck that way than you do building infrastructure.
And if you look at the CEA report, you’ll see that it carefully fudges the difference between jobs created, on the one hand, and jobs saved, on the other; in fact, it seems to used “created” and “created or saved” as synonyms. So if you’ve had a job for years, and you’re still in that job, you can still be counted in these job-creation statistics if the government somehow determines that you might not be in that job had the stimulus bill not passed.
The fact is that if you move away from vague country-level statistics and start drilling down to the actual number of jobs created by actual infrastructure projects, you never get anywhere near $92,000 per job. For instance, have a look at the job-creation statistics on this page.
A 5-mile stretch of highway, costing $50 million, creates a total of 79 jobs. That’s over $600,000 per job. Even if you divide that by two on the grounds that it’s a two-year project, that’s still $300,000 per job-year. In railways, a $15 million investment creates 12 jobs — that’s $1.25 million per job, and it’s a one-year project.
I’ve seen similar numbers surrounding hospitals, and higher numbers surrounding nuclear power stations — basically, infrastructure investment is an incredibly inefficient way of creating jobs.
But what of DeFazio’s $35,941 figure? I finally tracked it down to here — a report which does not say that spending $35,941 “creates one infrastructure-related job”. Again, it’s talking job-years, not jobs, but more importantly, it says this:
The FHWA analysis refers to jobs supported by highway investments, this includes ‘new jobs’ to the extent unemployed labor is hired; ‘better jobs’ as currently employed workers move into jobs with better compensation and/or full time positions; and ‘sustained jobs’ as current employees are retained with the expenditure.
This is an even looser definition than “created or saved” — it also includes substantially everybody who just gets a promotion as well, along with that ill-defined definition of “sustained jobs”, comprising people who just stay in the same job they’ve had all along.
Finally, what is DeFazio talking about when he says that “transportation projects funded by ARRA have created or sustained more than 250,000 direct, on-project jobs, with payroll expenditures of $1.3 billion”? Simple division here would seem to imply that each worker is earning no more than $5,200 a year, which can’t be right. But again, look at the footnotes — specifically in this report, which is the source of DeFazio’s statistic:
Consistent with the U.S. Department of Transportation’s reporting requirements, the number of direct jobs is based on direct, on-project full-time-equivalent (FTE) job months. One person working full time or two people working one-half time for one month represents one FTE job month. FTE job months are calculated by dividing cumulative job hours created or sustained by 173 hours (40 hours per week times 52 weeks divided by 12 months = 173 hours).
Yes, for the purposes of this report, the government has calculated the number of jobs created by taking the number of hours worked and dividing by 173. If you pay a man to wield a shovel for one year, working 40 hours a week, then hey, you’ve created 12 jobs! If you pay him overtime, and he works 60 hours a week, then you’ve created 18 jobs! If he keeps on working at that pace for three years, then you’re up to 54 jobs! All from one man earning one paycheck.
So it’s not just DeFazio, then: everybody in the government seems to be happy fudging job-creation statistics, especially by using job-years or even job-months rather than actual jobs, and also by eliding the distinction between jobs created, on the one hand, and jobs improved or saved, on the other. That’s worth remembering, next time you hear a politician kvelling about how the government is creating millions of new jobs.
How the government fudges job statistics
Oh, it created jobs...
Felix Salmon
How the government fudges job statistics
By Felix Salmon
February 17, 2010
In the Marketplace letters segment yesterday, Representative Peter DeFazio (D-Oregon) took issue with me saying that infrastructure investment is an extremely expensive way of creating jobs and "costs a good $200,000 per job". Just as well I didn't use the $1 million figure here, which I stand by, and which was fact-checked by the Atlantic! " data-share-img="" data-share="twitter,facebook,linkedin,reddit,google,mail" data-share-count="false">
Tags:
employment
In the Marketplace letters segment yesterday, Representative Peter DeFazio (D-Oregon) took issue with me saying that infrastructure investment is an extremely expensive way of creating jobs and “costs a good $200,000 per job”. Just as well I didn’t use the $1 million figure here, which I stand by, and which was fact-checked by the Atlantic!
The host, Kai Ryssdal, had no time to read out the letter in full, but has allowed me to reprint it:
Dear Mr. Ryssdal:
I have always enjoyed your show and have enjoyed past opportunities to discuss issues as your guest. However, I was distressed last Friday to hear a purported expert guest, Reuters blogger Felix Salmon, state with great certainty that infrastructure investment is an inefficient jobs creator because those jobs are so expensive to create. To back up his argument he claimed that it costs $200,000 to create one infrastructure job. However, he provided no source for this claim and you failed to challenge his assertion.
The Council of Economic Advisors has estimated that $92,000 in direct government spending creates one job-year, regardless of the sector of the economy. The U.S. Department of Transportation, arguably the most knowledgeable government agency when it comes to transportation spending and the resulting job creation, states that an investment of $35,941 creates one infrastructure-related job. Those two confirmable estimates are a far cry from the dubious $200,000-per-job claim from Mr. Salmon. Unfortunately Mr. Salmon’s assertion went unchallenged while the other guest, Heidi Moore of The Big Money, seemed to tacitly agree with him.
I am particularly sensitive about this issue since the AP ran an article last month on an “analysis” by AP reporters that used incomplete information to draw inaccurate and misleading conclusions about the success of the transportation infrastructure component of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). The article claimed that “a surge in spending on roads and bridges has had no effect on local unemployment ” based on the reporters’ finding that “local unemployment rates rose and fell regardless of how much stimulus money Washington poured out for transportation.” However, instead of examining the impact of ARRA’s transportation investment on jobs in the transportation industry – an appropriate comparison – the reporters compared the transportation funding, which comprised only 6 percent of spending in the Recovery Act, to the overall unemployment rate. This led to a specious conclusion and ignores the fact that transportation projects funded by ARRA have created or sustained more than 250,000 direct, on-project jobs, with payroll expenditures of $1.3 billion.
I continue to support infrastructure investment as both a justified investment that future generations will benefit from as well as one of the most efficient creators of jobs, contrary to the beliefs of purported experts like Mr. Salmon and the so-called investigative reporters from the AP. I hope you will set the record straight. If you would like to discuss this further you can contact me directly at [redacted].
Sincerely,
Peter A. DeFazio, M.C.
Chairman, Subcommittee on Highways and Transit
(In case you were wondering, the “M.C.” just means Member of Congress.)
I have no dog in DeFazio’s fight with the AP. But his attacks on me are just plain wrong. Infrastructure investments are simply not “one of the most efficient creators of jobs”, no matter how much DeFazio might want them to be, and the sources he cites to back up that claim don’t support it.
What’s at issue here is a ratio: I’m talking about dollars per job created. To get that number, you take the number of dollars spent, and divide it by the number of jobs created. DeFazio, by contrast, subtly tries to change the denominator when he says that “$92,000 in direct government spending creates one job-year”: he’s taking dollars, dividing by jobs created, and then dividing again by the number of years that each job is expected to last.
In the real world, of course, if you spend $300,000 to create a job which lasts three years, then that’s one job created with your $300,000, not three jobs. Only in DC would people attempt to claim that their $300,000 had created three “job-years”.
What’s more, the $92,000 estimate covers government spending in general, not just infrastructure spending. Infrastructure spending gets you low bang for the buck, in terms of job creation, compared to other kinds of spending — my example on the show was arts subsidies. A lot of government spending goes on creating new federal jobs: you get much more job creation per buck that way than you do building infrastructure.
And if you look at the CEA report, you’ll see that it carefully fudges the difference between jobs created, on the one hand, and jobs saved, on the other; in fact, it seems to used “created” and “created or saved” as synonyms. So if you’ve had a job for years, and you’re still in that job, you can still be counted in these job-creation statistics if the government somehow determines that you might not be in that job had the stimulus bill not passed.
The fact is that if you move away from vague country-level statistics and start drilling down to the actual number of jobs created by actual infrastructure projects, you never get anywhere near $92,000 per job. For instance, have a look at the job-creation statistics on this page.
A 5-mile stretch of highway, costing $50 million, creates a total of 79 jobs. That’s over $600,000 per job. Even if you divide that by two on the grounds that it’s a two-year project, that’s still $300,000 per job-year. In railways, a $15 million investment creates 12 jobs — that’s $1.25 million per job, and it’s a one-year project.
I’ve seen similar numbers surrounding hospitals, and higher numbers surrounding nuclear power stations — basically, infrastructure investment is an incredibly inefficient way of creating jobs.
But what of DeFazio’s $35,941 figure? I finally tracked it down to here — a report which does not say that spending $35,941 “creates one infrastructure-related job”. Again, it’s talking job-years, not jobs, but more importantly, it says this:
The FHWA analysis refers to jobs supported by highway investments, this includes ‘new jobs’ to the extent unemployed labor is hired; ‘better jobs’ as currently employed workers move into jobs with better compensation and/or full time positions; and ‘sustained jobs’ as current employees are retained with the expenditure.
This is an even looser definition than “created or saved” — it also includes substantially everybody who just gets a promotion as well, along with that ill-defined definition of “sustained jobs”, comprising people who just stay in the same job they’ve had all along.
Finally, what is DeFazio talking about when he says that “transportation projects funded by ARRA have created or sustained more than 250,000 direct, on-project jobs, with payroll expenditures of $1.3 billion”? Simple division here would seem to imply that each worker is earning no more than $5,200 a year, which can’t be right. But again, look at the footnotes — specifically in this report, which is the source of DeFazio’s statistic:
Consistent with the U.S. Department of Transportation’s reporting requirements, the number of direct jobs is based on direct, on-project full-time-equivalent (FTE) job months. One person working full time or two people working one-half time for one month represents one FTE job month. FTE job months are calculated by dividing cumulative job hours created or sustained by 173 hours (40 hours per week times 52 weeks divided by 12 months = 173 hours).
Yes, for the purposes of this report, the government has calculated the number of jobs created by taking the number of hours worked and dividing by 173. If you pay a man to wield a shovel for one year, working 40 hours a week, then hey, you’ve created 12 jobs! If you pay him overtime, and he works 60 hours a week, then you’ve created 18 jobs! If he keeps on working at that pace for three years, then you’re up to 54 jobs! All from one man earning one paycheck.
So it’s not just DeFazio, then: everybody in the government seems to be happy fudging job-creation statistics, especially by using job-years or even job-months rather than actual jobs, and also by eliding the distinction between jobs created, on the one hand, and jobs improved or saved, on the other. That’s worth remembering, next time you hear a politician kvelling about how the government is creating millions of new jobs.
How the government fudges job statistics
So at least oldstyle is consistent. Here he picks a source who is a pretty small time journalist. No economists for oldstyle. He chooses to pick sources with as little economic background as himself. That is, basically NONE.What a stupid source. Just like the poster.
Oh, it created jobs...
And yet you posted article arguing it didn't create jobs, so we must go with option 2 - you are saying blatantly contradictory things but are not even conscious of it.
What's ludicrous, Anton is your contention that there is essentially no difference between jobs created and jobs saved!
"...fell flat when you tried it the first time."Do you ever stop lying, ya con tool? Ever??I read the article and still don't know what your complaint is. If you think their numbers were wrong, where does the article say that? It does indicate coming up with a number can be difficult but I don't see any other numbers in their indicating the numbers posted were wrong.Read the article and it will explain to you what's "wrong" with the claim that 640,000 jobs were created or saved!
Pair that article stating that the government was having difficulty coming up with correct numbers with the article that shows how government used accounting "tricks" to make it appear that many more jobs had been created than actually were, Faun! My main purpose for including it however is the quote stating that you can't find the term "jobs saved" in any economics text book because quite frankly it hadn't existed before the Obama Administration coined it to obscure how many jobs were actually created by the Obama Stimulus!
I already showed you the Bush administration used the term. So yes, not only had it existed -- but it was used by the previous president.
Your lying aside, you offered nothing to discount that 640,000 figure, so the only conclusion I can reach is that it probably is within range of how many jobs were created and/or saved.
Dude, there is a HUGE difference between what you showed the Bush Administration using and how the Obama Administration used "Jobs created and saved" to hide how few jobs their stimulus ended up creating. Your attempt to show that the Bush Administration used a phrase somewhat like jobs saved fell flat when you tried it the first time. It was laughably bad! Now you bring it back? Like it's going to be better now?
As to whether the 640,000 created or saved is "within range"? Of course it is you buffoon! The entire reason for USING "created or saved" is that you can name any number you want to because there is ZERO way of determining the "saved" part! It always used to amaze me that ANYONE would fall for the bullshit that the Obama people were putting out but after listening to you...I realize that they accurately assessed the gullibility of their supporters to a T!
Holyfuckingshit!Do you ever stop lying, ya con tool? Ever??I read the article and still don't know what your complaint is. If you think their numbers were wrong, where does the article say that? It does indicate coming up with a number can be difficult but I don't see any other numbers in their indicating the numbers posted were wrong.Read the article and it will explain to you what's "wrong" with the claim that 640,000 jobs were created or saved!
Pair that article stating that the government was having difficulty coming up with correct numbers with the article that shows how government used accounting "tricks" to make it appear that many more jobs had been created than actually were, Faun! My main purpose for including it however is the quote stating that you can't find the term "jobs saved" in any economics text book because quite frankly it hadn't existed before the Obama Administration coined it to obscure how many jobs were actually created by the Obama Stimulus!
I already showed you the Bush administration used the term. So yes, not only had it existed -- but it was used by the previous president.
Your lying aside, you offered nothing to discount that 640,000 figure, so the only conclusion I can reach is that it probably is within range of how many jobs were created and/or saved.
Dude, there is a HUGE difference between what you showed the Bush Administration using and how the Obama Administration used "Jobs created and saved" to hide how few jobs their stimulus ended up creating. Your attempt to show that the Bush Administration used a phrase somewhat like jobs saved fell flat when you tried it the first time. It was laughably bad! Now you bring it back? Like it's going to be better now?
As to whether the 640,000 created or saved is "within range"? Of course it is you buffoon! The entire reason for USING "created or saved" is that you can name any number you want to because there is ZERO way of determining the "saved" part! It always used to amaze me that ANYONE would fall for the bullshit that the Obama people were putting out but after listening to you...I realize that they accurately assessed the gullibility of their supporters to a T!
Do you ever stop lying? Ever??Oh, it created jobs...
And yet you posted article arguing it didn't create jobs, so we must go with option 2 - you are saying blatantly contradictory things but are not even conscious of it.
Oh for god's sake, Anton...you know EXACTLY what I'm claiming and it WASN'T that the Obama Stimulus didn't create any jobs...I'm claiming that it created so few that the Obama White House had to come up with "jobs saved" to make it look palatable when they sold how well the stimulus was working to idiots like Faun and Georgie!
Oh, it created jobs...
And yet you posted article arguing it didn't create jobs, so we must go with option 2 - you are saying blatantly contradictory things but are not even conscious of it.
Oh for god's sake, Anton...you know EXACTLY what I'm claiming and it WASN'T that the Obama Stimulus didn't create any jobs...
"The trillion dollar 'stimulus' isn't working, and no amount of phony statistics can change that," said House Republican Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio. OK. You could not find a further right source. Let me see what Ried has to say. Nah. I have integrity. Dipshit."The president and his economic team promised the 'stimulus' would create jobs 'immediately' and unemployment would stay below 8%. But America has lost more than three million jobs since then, and the unemployment rate is nearing double digits."I can't believe this is still going.
I'll give it one more try, one more time only.
Oldstyle, it is very simple - the numbers administration used are legitimate, un-made-up numbers confirmed by estimates CBO did. Your argumentation that they were somehow simply made up by administration is BS, no ifs, no butts.
Time to learn it and move on with your life, because when you deny the obvious you make yourself look like a idiot. Why are you so hell bent on making yourself look that way?
You want to make non-idiot argument against stimulus? Here it is, listen up:
Stimulus, and other expansionary policies Obama administration put in place during recession did in fact make for a significant jobs increase since he has been in office, these policies however have come at expense of aggravating our long term problems. The money we burrowed yesterday caused jobs, but the interest and eventual settling of the debt will ultimately cost even more jobs due to contractionary policies (increasing taxes and/or cutting spending) needed to repay it.
Yes, this is what sane, fact respecting, economically sound, conservative argument looks like - and because of those fine qualities we will rarely hear it from our challenged friends on the right.
Wonderful! Since you contend that the numbers the Obama Administration came up with for "Jobs Saved" are legitimate and un-made-up...you should have no problem at all providing the formula that was used to arrive at those numbers...right?
You folks on the left keep declaring that "Jobs Saved" is a verifiable number...yet none of you can give me the formula that one would use to arrive at that "verified" total! There's a reason for that, Anton and it's because the numbers aren't legitimate...it's because they were manufactured. Obama's economists plugged in whatever number of jobs saved that they needed to make the jobs created number look acceptable...called the fiction that they'd created "Jobs Created or Saved" and sold it to a gullible public.
Wonderful! Since you contend that the numbers the Obama Administration came up with for "Jobs Saved" are not legitimate and made-up...you should have no problem at all providing a source with economic credentials and that is impartial to back up your allegations.
You folks on the right keep declaring that "Jobs Saved" is an un-verifiable number...you keep asking for a formula you say does not exist. Any concept of how stupid that makes you look?Now oldstyle says "There's a reason for that, Anton and it's because the numbers aren't legitimate...it's because they were manufactured. Obama's economists plugged in whatever number of jobs saved that they needed to make the jobs created number look acceptable...called the fiction that they'd created "Jobs Created or Saved" and sold it to a gullible public." But Oldstyle can find no source to prove his accusations. And they remain just the argument of a ignorant food services employee and ignorant con troll. Makes oldstyle a total waste of space.
Posting republican political officials means nothing, me boy. We are al used to their 24/7/365 attacks.
Boehner also pointed to a memo from Carnegie Mellon professor Allan Meltzer, who said that the White House is misleading the nation by saying the Recovery Act has saved jobs.
"Visiting Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute"
The Arena: - Allan Meltzer Bio
So, you have no idea what an impartial source is, do you, Oldstyle?
"One can search economic textbooks forever without finding a concept called 'jobs saved,' " wrote Meltzer, who served as an economic adviser under President Ronald Reagan. "It doesn't exist for good reason: how can anyone know that his or her job has been saved?"Stimulus creates 640,000 jobs - White House says - Oct. 30, 2009
Thank you, me boy, for proving my point. You stay in the bat shit crazy sites and use conservative sources and call them impartial. Because you are a lying con troll. No surprise, and nothing learned. Just Oldstyle being what he is.
In the face of multiple economic groups that are considered impartial, Oldstyle picks quotes from a republican past speaker of the house. Because he could not find a more partial source. Except he then picked a quote from Allan Meltzer, a visiting professor at the american enterprise institute., and well know con. Great, oldstyle, thanks for proving me correct and showing what you are. Which is, of course, a JOKE.
Do you ever stop lying? Ever??Oh, it created jobs...
And yet you posted article arguing it didn't create jobs, so we must go with option 2 - you are saying blatantly contradictory things but are not even conscious of it.
Oh for god's sake, Anton...you know EXACTLY what I'm claiming and it WASN'T that the Obama Stimulus didn't create any jobs...I'm claiming that it created so few that the Obama White House had to come up with "jobs saved" to make it look palatable when they sold how well the stimulus was working to idiots like Faun and Georgie!
You've already been shown that the Obama Administration used that term before the plan was implemented. So for you to continue claiming they only came up with it because it created so few jobs is nothing other than a lying con tool, lying again.
