We Need To Find A Generic Republican
by Big Dog on Jun 17, 2011 at 07:44 Political
In recent polls for the 2012 presidential contest, a contest that is a year and a half away, Barack Obama beats or ties most of the announced or potential Republican candidates. Romney has traded places atop the polls but for the most part, Obama is ahead of the pack.
The polling that asks about the generic Republican shows that Obama loses. Obama loses to an unnamed, unknown generic Republican but beats the current field. This shows two things. America is generally tired of Obama and wants a change in leadership and that the current crop (thus far) is not the change in leadership that they want.
This could change over time as right now allegiances are spread across a wide Republican field but as it stands right now, Obama beats them when he can’t beat the generic candidate.
Unless someone jumps out of the pack of Republicans and espouses what those polled see in the “generic” candidate, Republicans need to find that generic candidate somewhere else.
The population is looking for a conservative with a proven record of financial experience who has not wavered on core principles. The current pack has few of those in it. Romney gave us Obamacare light and has changed his positions on several issues. He is a smart money man but to many, Obamacare light is a deal breaker.
People have a right to change positions over time based on experience and knowledge but too often positions change based on politics and that is not the mark of a principled person. Plenty of politicians opposed abortion (or federal funding of it) but changed over time for political gain. Look at how many have no problem with federal funding of abortion under Obamacare. Al Gore changed his position completely when being pro life was not to his political advantage.
These are not principled positions. The Republicans need that person who has a solid record of conservative values and have been principled in the approach to these sensitive issues.
Who will that generic person be?
Right now it is hard to say if one of the current contenders is the one or if a new person will have to emerge.
But one thing is certain, whomever it is, the left and its media wing will wage a full scale assault on that person. Power is a strong incentive to many people who have less than honorable intentions.
The Rasmussen poll linked above shows that voters are likely to vote for whomever the Republicans nominate and that is the generic Republican. This is misleading when one considers that the individuals currently in the race lose when polled head to head against Obama (except Romney who trades places depending upon the poll). If current economic conditions persist it is possible for Obama to lose to any candidate but if they improve the Republicans will need a strong, principled candidate in order to win.
Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[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: abortion, conservative, democrat, generic, lies, obamacare, republican
If conservative leaning voters have to hold their noses at the polls again in 2012 then Obama will most likely win re-election.
I still hold out thinking a stronger GOP candidate will enter the field. I doubt your side will let Romney go longer than a few states in before he’ll end up dropping out again. He just flip-flops too much. If there’s a candidate out there that will excite your base the way you need he or she is not in the pool yet.
In Obama’s favor: The economy has been headed in the right direction for years and has 18 months to continue it’s overall trend of steady improvement.
Your side is still holding out almost wishing for a double-dip recession but you’ll most likely be disappointed. Despite 6 or more weeks of bad news most economists think this is a blip and not the overall direction the economy is headed.
Hold our noses? You mean Obama will be on the ticket again? Wow Adam, you are such a liberal racist! Negros smell but it is completely racist to say so. And a ballot with a negro’s name on it stinks, to you? You are sick sick sick.
Adam, we are now entering a double-dip recession, but the reason it seems hard to see, is that we never really got out of the first one.
Nothing has been headed in the right direction unless you are contemplating the destruction of the US as we know it. Housing is down, as much as it has ever been, unemployment is 9.1 (now)- the unions are trying to hamstring companies unless they get their pacifier, in the form of pensions and health care- and speaking of health care, it has driven five doctors THAT I KNOW OF out of business. Oh, this is sooooo great!
So, I ask you- where is the upside?
I feel that I have gone down a very evil rabbithole, where down is up, and good is bad.
Conservative business men refuse to give up. That is why recession is taking longer to achieve than Obama and Adam hoped.
If it were not for good men fighting back, Democrats and liberals would have killed America in the 20’s and 30’s.
Or the 60’s, 70’s 90’s, Yeah the 90’s…2000’s…2010’s…
It has been a constant battle, fighting socialism in America, and it isn’t over.
When will these economic retards be banned from office? How many decades does it take to have liberals prove themselves unfit to govern others?
Sorry to break this to you, Alice, but the recession ended two years ago this month. We have had 7 straight quarters of positive GDP growth. GDP is still growing this quarter so it’s hardly valid to suggest we are entering a second dip somehow.
Housing isn’t in great shape but it can’t recover as quickly as you seem to think it should. It was the cause of the problem and the inventory is still too big.
Unemployment is high and it will get higher. It’s painful but it’s also improving.
We have now had a net increase in jobs since the recession ended in June 2009 including +542,000 in the private sector alone. We have had 14 straight months of private sector job growth accounting for +2,144,000 jobs. Obama is on track to be able to tout positive job growth during his first term in office which is going to irritate the hell out of your side.
Remember, for Obama to be a success he’ll have to create 9 million jobs in 4 years according to Big Dog. If he doesn’t well then, the stimulus failed…
Translation;
Government jobs, mostly in airport security and social services (called private, because there is no government over-sight) are up! Also, activists lawyers are fully employed, busting companies for…well, doing business.
Fast food chains are also hiring. Because of the poor performance of teachers (government employees) kids think being queer is fine but haven’t clue what a decent meal consists of.
Medical worker are in big demand. Not doctors. Just the social services “house-to-house” pass out the Ridlin and report family abuse. Like, spanking kids is a jail able offense. There are a lot more cops, too. Because liberal judges think punishment is wrong.
GDP is up; American business are selling out and moving to other countries. What other countries? It doesn’t matter, just AWAY from the USA. GDP is up!
Housing is stagnant. The largest investment a man will probably make in his life time. Stagnant. A sure indicator of “better times coming!” Think, ‘move back home and have mom do the cooking and cleaning, and dad buys the food.’ Better times are coming!
Adam, you still live at home, I hear. Is that true?
We can count it as growth only if we use the metric of dirt becoming stone, the “growth” is that slow.
By ANY metric you care to use, we are on the losing end- I will be so glad when the doorknob hits Owebama on the way out.
We have lost 1.8 million jobs since stimulus was signed. The numbers were Obama’s and Biden’s and they are nowhere near where they said they would be.
Saying 1.8 were lost is technically true but misleading as if we haven’t had 14 straight months of growth. In fact we lost 1.8 million in the first 3 months alone after it was signed simply because the impact wasn’t right away. We would lose 3.6 million total in before job losses actually turned to gains but we’ve gained 1.8 million since.
But of course as I’ve said time and again the stimulus was never supposed to create a net increase in jobs. It was a fixed amount of money while everything else was variable so therefore the impact was variable in the end.
For those who like to cite U6 to suggest unemployment is bad let me note the following interesting fact: While U3 has gone from 9.4% to just 9.1% in the last 6 months, U6 has actually declined from 16.7% to 15.8%. As people begin to look for work again U3 goes up but U6 has always been counting the discouraged so a decline of nearly 1% in U6 is a noteworthy decline. U3 is going to keep going up and up perhaps the rest of this year unless job growth dramatically increases. It seems like GDP and job growth is slowing though so that won’t be the case.
Statistics, like Adam, lie.
Simply put, 18,687,124 jobs lost.
563,724 jobs created.
That is not a gain.
I had a friend who used statistics just as Adam does. He was a gambler, and every weekend before going home to the wife and kids, he would try to parlay his weekly check into a fortune at the Pachinko Parlor.
Invariably, come Monday, he would be at work broke. But he never failed to brag on how much he won!
How can that be? He won, yet he was broke.
When pressured to let us know his secret of success and simultaneous failure, here is what he said.
“I won $837 on the slot. But it took me $1498 to do it.”
And that folks, is Obama and Adam, giving us statistics on employment, finances, or what ever. Their goal isn’t to accurately inform anyone of facts. It is to make their party look “good.” To make it look re-electable.
In the vernacular, it is called “lying.”
The conservatives don’t need a middle-of-the road conservative to win the next election. We just need someone honest.
Some one NOT chosen by the media for us.
The Stimulus was a jobs bill. Just because Adam says it was not designed to increase jobs does not mean that is not what the regime pushed on us when it wanted it passed. Remember Biden and his three letter word J-O-B-S?
How many did they say would be created? Their own analysts said unemployment would not go above 8% and yes, it has been demonstrated time and again the uncertainty in numbers they discussed was without the stimulus and how UE could go above their predictions. It was designed to give a doomsday scenario if the Stimulus was not passed so people would get on board and the public would be OK with it.
The whole thing was about job creation and bringing UE down and employing more people. That is how they sold it when Obama was supposed to be focused like a laser and there were supposed to be a zillion “shovel ready” jobs.
There has been a net LOSS in the number of jobs. We have fewer people working now than we did before stimulus was signed. This is contrary to what we were told and your spin on the issue does not change that.
“Just because Adam says it was not designed to increase jobs…”
It was designed to create or save millions of jobs. It was not designed to create a net increase of millions of jobs. That is where you can’t speak honestly about the stimulus for some reason.
First, keep in mind that the administration estimates came out in January 2009 and by January 2009 we had already lost 4.4 million jobs. By the time the stimulus was signed we’d lost 5.1 million total. By March when money was first reported as being spent we had lost 6 million total.
Now let’s look at what the administration estimated the stimulus would do:
Let me simplify that so that in the future you don’t have to lie about this: We’d already lost 4.4 million by the time of the estimate and they estimated the stimulus would at the high end create 4.1 by the end of 2010. Never was there going to be a net increase in jobs created by the stimulus. This was not argued by the administration, you simply are making that up.
“We have fewer people working now than we did before stimulus was signed.”
Correct, and that is a legitimate argument. The stimulus estimate didn’t predicting anything too rosy but it did suggest that more people would be working by the end of Q4 2010 than were working in Q1 2009. They estimated Unemployment would be about 7.5% (peaking at 8%) by the time the stimulus passed and about 6.8% by now. We know now it would be 8.2% when passed, peak at 10.1%, and is 9.1% now. This goes back to the package value being finite while everything else could change. The problem is two fold: The stimulus did not impact jobs as much as hoped and job losses were much greater than estimated.
Adam, you are dumber than a puppy. With a puppy, when you push his nose in his poo, after a number of times he learns not to poo in his own house.
It just doesn’t work with you. Everyone and their dog is smarter than you.
Assuming a couple means two to Biden like it does the rest of the world then by June of 2010 we should have been seeing 250k to 500k per month. That would be an increase of 4-6 million jobs which, when added to those already claimed as added, would result in a net increase. It did not do what they said it would do.
Job creation overall and job creation effected by the stimulus are two different subjects. This is Biden speaking a year after the stimulus was passed and he was not arguing the stimulus itself would create those jobs. The expectations and estimates for what the stimulus would do is contained neatly in a short document you and I have gone over time and again which you can’t seem to speak honestly about. You have to set false expectations for the stimulus so you can disregard all of it’s successes and call it a failure.
I can’t speak honestly about that document? You are the one who continually misrepresents what it says about the unemployment rate.
The stimulus was a failure. We would have had the same number of jobs produced (actually more) if we had not spent that money.
I can’t understand why people think that spending money we do not have will help and economy and why people keep thinking that government produces jobs.
Private sector produces jobs and right now it is not doing that because of the uncertainty in DC. Democrat policies are not business friendly and no business will hire people if they will end up taking it in the rear in the long run.
Tax policies and Obamacare are job destroying policies. Private business knows this because those folks know better than any politician and any economist what is best for business. Since none of the regime is what anyone would call successful in the business arena it would be wise to pay attention to those who are.
The stimulus is the recovery act and Biden was in charge of it. He was talking about the policies of the regime when discussing this and the stimulus was part of that.
You would find a way to defend these people if they beheaded a baby on TV.
Wait, you almost do that now but with abortion…
Anytime you bring Biden into the debate, you automatically lose, the Veep is THAT dumb.
Did you hear of the drinking game where you drank a shot for everyone of his hairplugs? Noone ever got drunk.
Biden is so shallow that he only cares how people view him as he approaches- he doesn’t care when he walks away.
And also, has anyone else noticed the resemblance of Biden to the grouchy puppet that Jeff Dunham has on his show?
“You are the one who continually misrepresents what it says about the unemployment rate.”
You mean like how you think the document said that it would only get to 8% and if it went higher than the stimulus was a dismal failure? You’re projecting. The only one misrepresenting the document is you. You can’t help yourself. You predicted the stimulus was a failure the day it was signed and since then you’ve had to ignore reality constantly to find evidence you were correct.
“I can’t understand why people think that spending money we do not have will help and economy and why people keep thinking that government produces jobs.”
It’s basic economics. The government was not trying to create private sector jobs. Instead it invested tax dollars into areas of the economy that created those jobs.
“We would have had the same number of jobs produced (actually more) if we had not spent that money.”
And you base this idea on what facts or evidence? Models built by actual economists and business leaders suggest the stimulus succeeded in preventing the economy from shedding more jobs and declining further in GDP. Millions of Americans are working now that would not be working had there been no stimulus and unemployment would be around 11% instead of 9%.
I doubt you’ll find people saying the stimulus succeeded in every way or exceeded expectations or anything like that. In the end though a majority of actual economists agree: The stimulus prevented the recession from becoming a depression.
“You would find a way to defend these people if they beheaded a baby on TV.”
Yes, watching Democrats succeed in front of your eyes probably is about as painful to Republicans like yourself as seeing a baby beheaded on TV. Suck it up though. Obama’s policies along with the Democrats in Congress saved the country from a disaster. Sooner or later you’ll run out of ways to delude yourself into thinking otherwise. Or maybe I’m wrong. Maybe you’ll always have one more lie to tell and one more fantasy about how great conservative policies are at running (ruining) economies.
Keep telling yourself this and you might believe it. The document clearly stated that UE would not be above 8% with Stimulus and could go above it (as high as 11%) without and that there was a great deal of uncertainty WITH REGARD TO WITHOUT. There was no doubt to these folks that 8% would be tops with it. The document states this in the footnotes if you actually read them and what they refer to.
It is easy to claim that the stimulus avoided another depression. There is no way to prove this. I have as much validity in claiming that doing nothing would have been more successful. Can’t prove it because we did not do it.
There are more people out of work today then there was then. You can say there would have been even more but you cannot prove this. It is like a saved job, you can’t show that in any real and measurable form. And the metric the regime used was flawed and designed to make things good no matter what. A LIE.
Inflation is way up and if they added fuel and food it would be reflected.
If we have a double dip recession I am sure you will claim that this was by design and no one ever said it would not happen blah, blah.
You rely on people who have no real world experience. As people who own businesses how things are and ask the millions who have no jobs. They will tell you that it is not good.
Yes, I said the stimulus was a failure from the start because government intervention in the economy will lead to failure. We now have trillions more debt, fewer people working, a housing market at its lowest in history, an uneasy stock market, skyrocketing foreclosures, skyrocketing fuel and food costs, and a misery index that is the highest it has ever been.
Sure looks like success.
As for conservative policies, they work and we have shown it time and again. Limited government and lower taxes. It all depends on how you measure success though. To you lying thieving liberals success is how many people you can put on a government program. It matters not to you what it costs, if it is Constitutional or if it is wise, you just need everyone living off the government. Liberal programs put us in debt. SS, Medicare, welfare, and Obamacare, are all big expenses that someone has to pay for. 14 trillion in debt and 100 trillion in unfunded liability and you all call that success.
Then again, your CRA helped create this problem. Another liberal disaster. Liberalism ENSLAVES people. I don’t see too many conservatives wandering aimlessly after a disaster. Liberals (like in New Orleans) wander around waiting for someone to help them because they cannot help themselves.
Yes, models are wonderful for figuring stuff out. If models were correct Hillary would be president
“…and that there was a great deal of uncertainty WITH REGARD TO WITHOUT.”
Somewhere along the line you settled on that argument and it’s completely false. Let me cite for you again:
They wrote there is uncertainty in their estimate of the impact of the package on GDP and job creation. The 8% is an estimate with uncertainty.
“I have as much validity in claiming that doing nothing would have been more successful.”
It’s sad that you consider my claim based on the opinion of a majority of economists asked that question is just as valid as your claim based on nothing but your own opinion.
“You rely on people who have no real world experience.”
I rely on actual economists and business leaders. What are you relying on, again?
“We now have trillions more debt, fewer people working, a housing market at its lowest in history, an uneasy stock market, skyrocketing foreclosures, skyrocketing fuel and food costs, and a misery index that is the highest it has ever been.”
All of which would be much worse without the stimulus, bailouts, TARP, etc. Your argument is simply that since things are bad now that it is the fault of Obama or the stimulus but you present no evidence to base that conclusion on.
“Then again, your CRA helped create this problem.”
Make no mistake. Whatever role you think CRA played in opening the door to the crisis, it was not CRA that pushed banks to make super risky loans so they could be packaged and traded for billions in profits. From all the dozes of causes and mistakes that lead to the crisis you conveniently pick the one thing that played a very minor role but for which you can blame liberals for.
The CRA helped, but the banks were pushed by the Fannies and Freddies that were chaired by liberals and the “Let’s put crack hos in houses” liberals like Bwaney Fwank and his lisping liberal chorus.
Do you know the origin of “Chorus”? The background storyline of a TRAGEDY, as originated by the Greeks.
The footnotes clearluy delinate between the two.
The majority of economists said that Reagan would never reduce double digit inflation with his policies.
They were wrong. And if Congress had not spent more and more money we would have been in even better shape. Tax cuts brought in more money and Congress spent even more than that.
So the majority of economists (as if that is even true) do not necessarily have it right. How many have an agenda? How many espouse the failed Kenesian policies?
There are economists who say it did not work. Who do we believe?
The CRA absolutely led banks to do things in order to make a profit. They were FORCED to do things that would lead to the loss of money, plain and simple. They knew that they would lose money since they were forced to lend money to people who could not pay it back. They developed things to allow them to make money instead.
How many of Obama’s advisers were among those who developed and profitted off these things?
Oce again, you cannot make the claim those things would be worse since there is no way to prove such a statement. Countries that did less recovered faster.
“The footnotes clearly delineate between the two.”
Stop the dishonesty. Let me cite this one again too:
Again I’ll ask: What do you think the words “all of the estimates presented in this memo” mean? By all they mean just the estimates related to having no package?
“So the majority of economists (as if that is even true) do not necessarily have it right.”
That the experts may not be correct is second to the fact that I am citing the opinion of experts. Who are you citing, again?
“Once again, you cannot make the claim those things would be worse since there is no way to prove such a statement.”
When the the facts and research compiled by by actual experts in economics and business are not valid for me to use in an argument with you then I guess we don’t really have much of an argument, do we?
And for the record I did not state the majority of economists to mean all economists everywhere. I mean those asked the question such as: “Would we have been better off with or without a stimulus?” When you find a study that asks the opinion of multiple economists and you find a majority of those polled think the stimulus was a waste or actually hurt us, then let me know. I’m dying to find these economists you’re always talking about that agree with you.
I am citing the economists who disagree.
The part you cite in the memo deals with estimating different parts of the legislation of enacted separately. It comes directly after the section outlining different elements of the overall plan and what might happen if only parts are enacted which is why they talk about a hypothetical if Congress passes a different package.
The End Notes indicate certanty with enactment of the entire package Obama wanted and notes variability without it giving us higher estimates without.
Tell me, why is it that when you distort this way you cite that passage and neglect to apply it when you state for certain the number of jobs that MIGHT be lost? You are constantly saying how many would have been lost as if it is gospel when those numbers are cited in this report. If you apply the statement you cited to what i say then you have to apply it to your discussion of numbers of unemployed.
I guess it is only convenient for you to distort when it is not the numbers you want.
You want to know who agrees with me? How about nearly 100 prominent economists?
“The End Notes indicate certanty with enactment of the entire package Obama wanted and notes variability without it giving us higher estimates without.”
So how do you account for this statement near the start of the memo introduction:
“If you apply the statement you cited to what i say then you have to apply it to your discussion of numbers of unemployed.”
You’ll have to explain that better. I’m not sure what you’re accusing me of.
“How about nearly 100 prominent economists?”
Yes, in June 2010 they were shocked by the job report where only 41,000 (later revised to 48,000) private sector jobs were created. Funny how since then we’ve added 1.72 million private sector or an average of over 144,000 per month. That’s not spectacular but hardly the picture painted by those folks a year ago. Most of the stimulus money was set to kick in in 2010 anyway. These folks basically called it a failure just when job growth was starting to pick up.
You keep sticking with that.
And if you reread it you might figure out what I mean.
I think I already told you the statement near the start of the memo is in reference to taking various parts of the stimulus instead of the entirety proposed by Obama. They make it clear that there is a lot of uncertainty because Congress might give something different than what they want.
There are plenty of economists who say it would have been better to do less or nothing. You only cite the regime hacks who agree.
It is like Obama. He is violating the war powers act but said that the lawyers he talked to said it was OK. All the other lawyers AND CONGRESS said he was in violation but he selected only those who agreed with him.
Same with economists. Priming the pump does nothing to stimulate. Contrast Reagan with Obama and the real answer is clear.
“I think I already told you the statement near the start of the memo is in reference to taking various parts of the stimulus instead of the entirety proposed by Obama.”
That is not correct either. Let me cite that paragraph entirely:
Give it up. All of the estimates presented in the memo were subject to significant
margins of error and were not promises. This includes the 8% estimate.
“And if you reread it you might figure out what I mean.”
I guess I’ll just be left wondering then. You mention my “discussion of numbers of unemployed” but I’m not sure which discussion that was. If you think you’ve caught me in a double standard I’d imagine you’d want to take more time to explain it to me.
“There are plenty of economists who say it would have been better to do less or nothing. You only cite the regime hacks who agree.”
That’s like suggesting there are plenty of scientists that think global warming is a scam. There are plenty of scientists that think evolution is false. Hell, there are scientists that think the Earth is the center of the solar system. You can count yourself as with the kooks and the hacks or you can come into the mainstream and accept reality for what it is.
Give it up Adam. America is losing jobs, thank you Obama. End of story.
There ARE plenty of scientists that think global warming is a scam. but it doesn’t take a scientist to know that.
Huge parts of “evolution theory” are false.
So where do you think the center of the solar system is? Uranus?
Hypothetical rather than a final package. In other words, it comes from modeling what Obama wants vs what will finally pass. The proposal vs the final act of Congress. The uncertainty comes from modeling our hypothetical (what obama wants) vs what will pass. If you pass it just like we want the numbers would not have significant margins of error because we modeled it on that.
You keep citing numbers on how many jobs would have been lost. That number is an estimate from this report so it too is subject to significant margins of error. So when you continually claim we would have lost X number of jobs without the stimulus it is no more valid (under your interpretation) than the 8%.
“If you pass it just like we want the numbers would not have significant margins of error because we modeled it on that.”
They simply do not suggest such a thing in that document. Sorry. You’re just reaching again. All (read every, not just some) estimates in the document were subject to error.
“You keep citing numbers on how many jobs would have been lost. That number is an estimate from this report…”
Really? You’ll have to point out where I cited such a thing. I’ve sited values from the CBO, GlobalInsight, and Mark Zandi but I don’t believe I’ve cited figures from the document in question.
There is the obvious uncertainty that comes from modeling a hypothetical package rather than the final legislation passed by the Congress.
Hypothetical = the Obama plan
Final = Different than what we base it on
So lost in all this is your point. How does any of that change the fact that the report clearly states that all estimates in the report are significant margins of error? How do you read “all estimates” and conclude that means only some of the estimates in the document so therefore 8% is a hard value that must be met or else the stimulus failed?
The center of the Solar system; same place as the center for disease control, the center for higher learning, the Seattle center…
Earth must be the center. I don’t know of any centers on, like the Sun, do you? Ha ha ha!
Oh, that’s right! The Center for Disease Control really is on…well, I shouldn’t say that. It would be unfair to the other gays.
Significant margins of error if they vary from what was wanted.
The problem with that argument is that there is no IF in their statement. They state that ALL estimates are subject to significant margins of error. It does not say anything about there being significant margins of error only IF something happens. ALL estimates. You’re wrong.
It says that it is based on the hypothetical and there are big margins of error because they do not know what Congress will pass.
I also want to know why, if it has such a high margin of error, they even put it out. Why not give the highs and lows and show us?
They needed a report showing their best guess at impact to sell the program but it came with clear disclaimers.
It’s worth noting again that the failure to meet the 8% estimate was not because they dramatically miscalculated the impact of the package. They actually came pretty close. They suggested they wanted it to save or create at least 3 million jobs by the end of 2010. Recent estimates put that number somewhere around 2.5 million.
The biggest miscalculation in the document is how bad the recession was. They were working to counter a loss of 5 million total. But we’d lost 5 million almost before the stimulus was even law and we’d already exceeded that 8% mark.
Once again, saved jobs are a bogus statistic. Even if you could measure something like this the criteria they used allowed them to claim a saved job if a dollar was spent on a position even if the employer had no intention of dismissing the employee. Show me the number of jobs actually created and not the ones they think have been saved because that is a bogus line. And the link shows estimates.
Look at the jobs info here.
If we can make these kinds of claims then I saved hundreds of people from lung cancer by telling them not to smoke. They did not smoke to begin with but telling them not to means I saved them.
An important item:
From the moment the Obama administration came into office, there have been no net increases in full-time jobs, only in part-time jobs. This is contrary to all previous recessions. Employers are not recalling the workers they laid off from full-time employment.
From the article
“…the criteria they used allowed them to claim a saved job if a dollar was spent on a position even if the employer had no intention of dismissing the employee.”
This is why for instance in the latest look by CBO at the impact of the stimulus they talk on page 9 about how their methodology avoids the problem you mention by using a more comprehensive calculation.
Generally speaking the created/saved figures come from comparing actual employment numbers to estimates of how employment numbers would behave without a stimulus. I know you find that bogus as well though since you don’t believe models are ever accurate unless they predict what you think should happen.
“From the moment the Obama administration came into office, there have been no net increases in full-time jobs, only in part-time jobs.”
I’m going to just assume that figure is correct since there’s a lot of employment pain now. But the truth is Zuckerman is trotting out tired arguments against BLS and job reporting that make him untrustworthy. He talks down the Birth/Death model we spoke about a few weeks back. He fails to understand that BLS has a more accurate reporting method now than this time last year for instance but this doesn’t stop him from suggesting BLS lied and we really lost jobs last month instead.
Also he comes up with a magical 16% and claims it doesn’t even count discouraged workers. U-6 is 15.8 and encompasses all of the items he mentions including those he claims aren’t part of it. I have a hard time believing he arrived at 16% without using figures that already contain discouraged workers. This leads me to believe he doesn’t know what he’s talking about and is a poor source to cite.
Is this the same guy you cited before that didn’t know what he was talking about when we mentioned the birth death model? I’m starting to think it is.