/dev/null Posted November 1, 2009 Author Share Posted November 1, 2009 Well, maybe we should ask conner the "suxiest man alive" and pohsiB seviG daeH, and see what they say. In their defense, I posted this at 9:20pm on a Friday. Which means the Keith Olberman show as already over. So they haven't gotten their talking points yet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted November 2, 2009 Share Posted November 2, 2009 I just got done reading a very good, informative and non biased article regarding our economies "Recovery" and in there it talks about the supposed job growth and saved jobs that resulted from the Stimulus. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405...1078005538.html Stimulus and the Jobless Recovery Jobs 'created or saved' is meaningless. What matters is net job gain or loss, and that means the unemployment rate After reporting GDP, the government released new numbers claiming that the stimulus programs have "created or saved" over a million jobs. These data were collected from responses by government agencies that received federal funds under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Agencies were required to report "an estimate of the number of jobs created and the number of jobs retained by the project or activity." This report is required of all recipients (generally private contractors) of agency funds. Unfortunately, these data are not reliable indicators of job creation nor of the even vaguer notion of job retention. There are two major problems. The first and most obvious is reporting bias. Recipients have strong incentives to inflate their reported numbers. In a race for federal dollars, contractors may assume that the programs that show the most job creation may be favored by the government when it allocates additional stimulus funds. No dishonesty on the part of recipients is implied or required. But when a hire conceivably can be classified as resulting from the stimulus money, recipients have every incentive to classify the hire as such. Classification as stimulus-induced is even more likely if a respondent must only say that, except for the money, an employee would have been fired. In this case, no hiring need occur at all. Mr. Lazear, chairman of the President's Council of Economic Advisers from 2006-2009, is a professor at Stanford University's Graduate School of Business and a Hoover Institution fellow.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted November 3, 2009 Share Posted November 3, 2009 I remember Clinton boasting that he created something like 3 million new jobs during his reign.I believe him. I had six of them during his reign of terror. Clinton sat back and rode the technology wave while getting his dick sucked. This will be news to some - the government does not create jobs unless you're talking about spending tax dollars for new government jobs that contribute next to nothing to our economy. Apparently Dems think that spending a couple hundred billion dollars to employ 650K people is a good investment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted November 3, 2009 Share Posted November 3, 2009 Clinton sat back and rode the technology wave while getting his dick sucked. This will be news to some - the government does not create jobs unless you're talking about spending tax dollars for new government jobs that contribute next to nothing* to our economy. Apparently Dems think that spending a couple hundred billion dollars to employ 650K people is a good investment. Exactly. * Not only do they contribute nothing to our economy, but each one of those new gubmint jobs is now a permanent burden on the rest of us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted November 4, 2009 Share Posted November 4, 2009 I voted over-estimated. Every single one of them lie about this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts