About That Job Creation
by Big Dog on Feb 25, 2010 at 20:30 Political
Looks like the 95,000 jobs a month the administration is predicting hit a little snag:
The number of Americans filing for initial unemployment insurance surged to just below the 500,000 level last week, and have climbed more than 12% over the past two weeks, the government said Thursday. Money.CNN
Obama and his mouthpieces keep saying they “saved” or created millions of jobs.
The only thing I can figure is that they saved or created them in states 51 through 57…
Then again, if the White House can create ZIP codes and Congressional Districts out of thin air then it can certainly create jobs numbers the same way.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: jobs, Obama, unemployment
“Obama and his mouthpieces keep saying they ‘saved’ or created millions of jobs.”
Yes, like his mouthpieces at the CBO? Like his mouthpieces at Moody’s? Don’t pretend this is Obama’s people just repeating figures to make him look good. A growing number of independent sources agree with the projections coming from the administration. Jobs were created.
The administration said 95,000 on average. They didn’t say 95,000 for sure every month. Things will still be tough going forward and even when the situation improves it’s just going to get people looking for work again and unemployment numbers will rise again because of it.
Well they will improve soon as the government hires a zillion people to ask how many toilets you have (what does that have to do with the census). The issue is saved. We have already seen how this was bogus and the formula did not show a saved job. They counted people as saved if a dollar of stimulus was spent on them even if they were in no danger of losing their jobs. The recovery website was rife with incorrect information so there is not a lot of credibility there.
If unemployment is remaining the same how are jobs being created? The net is zero or close to it.
Certainly not what we were told when the stimulus was passed.
Remember what I told you about the CBO. They can only score based on what is provided.
Maybe this will help you understand the CBO numbers
I guess when you are rooting for America and the president to fail, a successful job creation report is bad news that a rightwinger needs to try and deal with.
CBO Latest to Confirm Success of Stimulus
Excerpt:
“With its estimate Tuesday that the $787 billion Obama stimulus package created up to 2.1 million jobs in the last quarter of 2009, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) joined in the near-unanimous chorus of voices proclaiming the package’s success. Of course, it wasn’t just the overwhelming consensus of economists which concurred that the stimulus saved or created about two million jobs while adding over three percentage points to U.S. gross domestic product. As the Washington Times, the Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg and ThinkProgress all documented, the hypocritical groveling of Republican Congressmen for stimulus dollars they opposed only served the validate that the recovery package was good public policy.
Echoing Obama administration claims that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) produced a net of between 1.5 and 2.0 million jobs for the economy, the CBO estimated that the economic stimulus law added between 1 million to 2.1 million workers to employment rolls by the end of last year. As ABC noted, the Recovery Act “also boosted the country’s economic growth by 1.5 to 3.5 percent during the time period and lowered the nation’s unemployment rate by between 0.5 and 1.1 percentage points.”
And going forward, the CBO forecasts, the picture is brighter still:” etc.
Let’s compare:
The Lost Decade: Zero Net Job Creation From 2000-2009
Obama has created more jobs in a year than Bush did in eight. Not bad. That’s just the way he rolls. And remember, this just continues the record of the last 11 presidents. All Demo’s on the top, all repubs on the bottom in job creation.
D.
Like I linked, the formula for measuring is designed so there will be jobs no matter what.
Yeah, that HuffPo, great wealth of knowledge. Most of that decade was a good economy despite the Clinton recession going in and 9/11. We had low unemployment. It is hard to create a lot of jobs when nearly everyone who wants to work is employed.
CBO, not measuring with reality. They should observe rather than use formulas designed to be positive.
Obama has created no jobs and most of the public as well as many economists do not think the stimulus worked. the nearly 10% unemployment (higher than they said it would be with the stimulus) is a good indication. He has lost 3 million jobs since he took office. Even if you could prove he created 3 million jobs it would be a zero sum game.
And government does not create jobs, the private sector does.
There was no Clinton recession first of all. Stop revising history.
Second, stop lying about jobs. You said, “Obama has created no jobs” and this is an obvious lie because you know better.
And again with noting that unemployment is higher than they predicted it would be? Come on now. Next you’ll be going on about how this snow storm means there’s no global warming. These talking points you keep spitting out make you sound like a broken record.
“…most of the public as well as many economists do not think the stimulus worked.”
First of all the public opinion on this matter is hardly a source. Second, many economists? List a few of them so we can discuss them.
“And government does not create jobs, the private sector does.”
More lies. Both the government and the private sector create jobs. The stimulus has created jobs in both areas but if you simply say it hasn’t I’m sure you’ll fool somebody somewhere…
Just because you keep saying something does not mean it is true but keep parroting and maybe someone will believe you.
The only jobs government creates are the ones where people are hired to work for the government.
If you mean you’re clarifying your statement to mean the government can’t create private sector jobs then it’s not as obvious a lie as simply saying “And government does not create jobs, the private sector does.” Clearly the government creates jobs by the bunches including your own. Yet, to argue the stimulus has not created jobs in the private sector? Well, the experts disagree with you.
Rewriting history? The numbers show that the recession started in Clinton’s last year in office but don’t take my word, take the word of these people:
Clinton’s Chairman Of Council Of Economic Advisors, Joseph Stiglitz, Said Recession Started During Clinton’s Tenure. “It would be nice for us veterans of the Clinton Administration if we could simply blame mismanagement by President George W. Bush’s economic team for this seemingly sudden turnaround in the economy, which coincided so closely with its taking charge. But … the economy was slipping into recession even before Bush took office, and the corporate scandals that are rocking America began much earlier.” (Joseph Stiglitz, “The Roaring Nineties,” The Atlantic Monthly, 10/02)
Stiglitz noted that during the Clinton Administration “the groundwork for some of the problems we are now experiencing was being laid. Accounting standards slipped; deregulation was taken further than it should have been; and corporate greed was pandered to ….” (Joseph Stiglitz, “The Roaring Nineties,” The Atlantic Monthly, 10/02)
Those are quotes from a Clinton guy.
But you could just look at when GDP started to fall (hint, in Clinton’s last year).
This is like your complaint about the surplus or the way unemployment is calculated. You want to change the way they are done in order to make a political point. The same here with the “Clinton Recession” which is a complete fantasy. You can’t just look at economic factors and point to a recession starting. NBER makes that determination, not you and your band of partisans.
No person should honestly say Bush caused the early 2000’s recession. Yet, the
recession officially began in March of 2001. This was not on Clinton’s watch and therefore you do not call it a “Clinton recession.” Even if you had absolute concrete proof that Clinton caused it you would not call it a “Clinton recession” because it did not happen under Clinton.