“Obama promises summer speed up of economic effort”-woohoo!

Loading

I know, another day, another economic photo op and pledge of hopeychangeyness from The One, but really…this one’s gonna make ya laugh (or cry buckets)

WASHINGTON (AP) – Eager to show action on the ailing economy, President Barack Obama promised Monday to speed federal money into hundreds of public works projects this summer, vowing that 600,000 jobs will be created or saved.

Surrounded by his Cabinet, Obama emphasized what has become a dominant issue of public concern—an economy that keeps bleeding jobs—on the day after returning from a week of diplomacy and sightseeing in the Middle East and Europe.

Did you see that? Since President Obama was elected, the US has lost about 600,000 jobs EACH MONTH, and to counter this President Obama is pledging to speed things up with the fake “stimulus spending” so that over 3 months, 600,000 jobs are created. Those jobs will be created at a cost of [DRUM ROLL…] about $1500000000 EACH!!!!!!!! Forget the fact that he’s only gonna create one month’s worth of jobs to counter 9 months of losses, the jobs he DOES create will be uber spending fiascos. No way-NO WAY are the people doing the new National Mall landscaping gonna get $1.5 BILLION each, but that’s what they’ll cost. So…where’s the rest of the money go? Ask ACORN.

In the meantime, remember 2 things:
1) This is happening on Obama’s watch
2) George W Bush never had us in this much of a mess

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
7 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

600,000 x $1.5 billion –> 6 x 10^5 x 1.5 x 10^9 = 9 x 10^14, which is to say 900 trillion; in other words your math is off by a factor of one thousand even if we accept the idea that all 900 billion of stimulus would be used to create these 600,000 jobs.
But now I’m depressed about having to use scientific notation to talk about the budget.

So teachers are kept employed, so are the police, and fireman. The hard to employee youth are getting employed, and some roads, sidewalks and getting fixed. So when the money runs out, who is going to keep these folks employed. Don’t tell me the economy is going to be so great that all will be well. Because the economy will be in the hands of the government, we pay the government, who pays the new employees.

Im reminded of an old saying “If ifs and buts were candy and nuts, we’d all have a merry xmas”

But now I’m depressed about having to use scientific notation to talk about the budget.

Then my larger point remains made regardless of my poor Obama-math skills
😉

Even if the math is off (which is really a non-point), the question remains: when has the government ever out-performed the private sector? There is no incentive for the government to be competitive. Private businesses on the other hand, if they are not spending money correctly, doing things better than the next guy, staying away from employees that would otherwise corrupt the name of the company; they will eventually go under. Its fact.

However, the government has no reason to stay on budget, do things better than the next guy (they just need to pass), they happen to be full of corrupt employees, and wa-la, its no surprise we are going under. In what world would a company that is tanking, decide to take out massive loans and call it a recovery? Its actually called buying time until the ship sinks.

Owning my own company has taught me that economics doesn’t stray far from the lemonade stand: if you don’t make profit, you can’t grow. If you can’t outperform the kid on the end of the street, they will take your business. If you keep borrowing money and never pay it back, you end up with a huge bill and a bully that is ready to pound the value out of you. I think America needs to get ready for Change. From the looks of it, Obama doesn’t seem to understand that the audacity of Hope, doesn’t put food on the table. Its just a nice bumper sticker slogan in the era of Bush jr. and gullible masses.

Did you guys check out McGurn’s WSJ piece?

JUNE 9, 2009

The Media Fall for Phony ‘Jobs’ Claims
The Obama Numbers Are Pure Fiction.

By WILLIAM MCGURN

Tony Fratto is envious.

Mr. Fratto was a colleague of mine in the Bush administration, and as a senior member of the White House communications shop, he knows just how difficult it can be to deal with a press corps skeptical about presidential economic claims. It now appears, however, that Mr. Fratto’s problem was that he simply lacked the magic words — jobs “saved or created.”

“Saved or created” has become the signature phrase for Barack Obama as he describes what his stimulus is doing for American jobs. His latest invocation came yesterday, when the president declared that the stimulus had already saved or created at least 150,000 American jobs — and announced he was ramping up some of the stimulus spending so he could “save or create” an additional 600,000 jobs this summer. These numbers come in the context of an earlier Obama promise that his recovery plan will “save or create three to four million jobs over the next two years.”

The president should ‘save or create’ more jobs in Cleveland.

Mr. Fratto sees a double standard at play. “We would never have used a formula like ‘save or create,'” he tells me. “To begin with, the number is pure fiction — the administration has no way to measure how many jobs are actually being ‘saved.’ And if we had tried to use something this flimsy, the press would never have let us get away with it.”

Of course, the inability to measure Mr. Obama’s jobs formula is part of its attraction. Never mind that no one — not the Labor Department, not the Treasury, not the Bureau of Labor Statistics — actually measures “jobs saved.” As the New York Times delicately reports, Mr. Obama’s jobs claims are “based on macroeconomic estimates, not an actual counting of jobs.” Nice work if you can get away with it.

And get away with it he has. However dubious it may be as an economic measure, as a political formula “save or create” allows the president to invoke numbers that convey an illusion of precision. Harvard economist and former Bush economic adviser Greg Mankiw calls it a “non-measurable metric.” And on his blog, he acknowledges the political attraction.

“The expression ‘create or save,’ which has been used regularly by the President and his economic team, is an act of political genius,” writes Mr. Mankiw. “You can measure how many jobs are created between two points in time. But there is no way to measure how many jobs are saved. Even if things get much, much worse, the President can say that there would have been 4 million fewer jobs without the stimulus.”

Mr. Obama’s comments yesterday are a perfect illustration of just such a claim. In the months since Congress approved the stimulus, our economy has lost nearly 1.6 million jobs and unemployment has hit 9.4%. Invoke the magic words, however, and — presto! — you have the president claiming he has “saved or created” 150,000 jobs. It all makes for a much nicer spin, and helps you forget this is the same team that only a few months ago promised us that passing the stimulus would prevent unemployment from rising over 8%.

It’s not only former Bush staffers such as Messrs. Fratto and Mankiw who have noted the political convenience here. During a March hearing of the Senate Finance Committee, Chairman Max Baucus challenged Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner on the formula.

“You created a situation where you cannot be wrong,” said the Montana Democrat. “If the economy loses two million jobs over the next few years, you can say yes, but it would’ve lost 5.5 million jobs. If we create a million jobs, you can say, well, it would have lost 2.5 million jobs. You’ve given yourself complete leverage where you cannot be wrong, because you can take any scenario and make yourself look correct.”

Now, something’s wrong when the president invokes a formula that makes it impossible for him to be wrong and it goes largely unchallenged. It’s true that almost any government spending will create some jobs and save others. But as Milton Friedman once pointed out, that doesn’t tell you much: The government, after all, can create jobs by hiring people to dig holes and fill them in.

If the “saved or created” formula looks brilliant, it’s only because Mr. Obama and his team are not being called on their claims. And don’t expect much to change. So long as the news continues to repeat the administration’s line that the stimulus has already “saved or created” 150,000 jobs over a time period when the U.S. economy suffered an overall job loss 10 times that number, the White House would be insane to give up a formula that allows them to spin job losses into jobs saved.

“You would think that any self-respecting White House press corps would show some of the same skepticism toward President Obama’s jobs claims that they did toward President Bush’s tax cuts,” says Mr. Fratto. “But I’m still waiting.”

I don’t know why king hussein is so pumped about saving a measly 600,000 jobs. I personally saved 8-million jobs just last week. Unfortunately, other conditions beyond my control resulted in this number of jobs plus some getting eliminated, so overall it was a decrease. But, just think how bad it would have been if I hadn’t stepped in and saved 8-million jobs.