Accomplishments of President Obama

[Happy Monkey]

So that's a no then? You have nothing (nothing at all) to dispute their accuracy?

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

They are certainly no crystal ball on what will really happen.

Originally Posted by classicman's post

The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), for example, has estimated that the stimulus was responsible for between 800,000 and 2.4 million jobs in 2009.

It's an estimate of past perfomance, based on what did happen, not a prediction.

The numbers have been invalidated by numerous organizations who are not associated with the government.

No they haven't (prove me wrong).

Even if you took the low end of most estimates at 600k that is pissing in the wind ...

Don't you mean "especially if"? If you take the low end, of 800K, it looks worse than than if you take the middle or high end? Amazing how that works.

[classicman]

One thing that I found of note, was that this was sold on "jobs created" and then morphed in "jobs saved or created"
What is the difference between the two?
Does it matter?

How are they actually determining the number of jobs? That formula actually changed midstream as well. According to the way I read it. The calculation is based upon man hours. If that is the case, then 2 part timers working 20 hours a week is the same as one full time job at 40 hrs.
Again - does it matter? Whats the difference?

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by classicman

One thing that I found of note, was that this was sold on "jobs created" and then morphed in "jobs saved or created"
What is the difference between the two?
Does it matter?

You can probably save more jobs with the same money than you could create, given spinup and training costs. Otherwise, there's no important difference I can see.

How are they actually determining the number of jobs? That formula actually changed midstream as well. According to the way I read it. The calculation is based upon man hours. If that is the case, then 2 part timers working 20 hours a week is the same as one full time job at 40 hrs.
Again - does it matter? Whats the difference?

Well, the reporting number ends up lower in that instance. They could claim that two people got jobs, but then be open to argument that they are part-time jobs. Reporting them as hours is probably more useful as a measurement of recovery.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

No they haven't (prove me wrong).

Lets go back to Nov 09 and start here. From the NYT:

Reports Show Conflicting Number of Jobs Attributed to Stimulus Money

Those two extremes illustrate the difficulties in trying to figure out just how many jobs can be attributed to the $787 billion stimulus program. Last week the Obama administration released reports from more than 130,000 recipients of stimulus money in which they claimed to have saved or created more than 640,000 jobs, but a review of those reports shows that some are simply wrong, while others contain apparently subjective estimates.

computer analysis by The New York Times of government reports showed that at least 30,000 of the jobs were being claimed in highway, street and bridge construction, and at least 14,000 were with transit agencies. The analysis found that the $5 billion push to weatherize homes, which was delayed in many states because of uncertainty over how much money the workers should be paid, had yielded only a little over 5,000 jobs so far, nearly half of which were in Ohio.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/05/us/05stimulus.html

The Obama administration has claimed that stimulus money has created or saved over 1 million new jobs. But with a U.S. national unemployment rate of 10.2 percent, it seems as though some people just weren’t buying it.
In the ABC News report, reporter Johnathan Karl dug deep into the data available on recovery.gov and the results were surprising to say the least. Among the inconsistencies are the following:
• Reports of jobs created in non-existent districts from virtually every U.S. state.
• Agencies that simply used the stimulus money to provide raises for their employees and counting those as saved jobs.
• Stimulus money that was used by agencies however no jobs were created. This is the case in Statesboro, GA where a nursing home used $243,500 of stimulus money to renovate its facilities yet reported that no jobs were created.
• Erroneous reporting of new jobs by agencies that now admit the jobs that have not even begun yet.

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/282301

"In late October, the administration reported that the first recipients of stimulus grants, contracts or loans created or saved more than 640,000 jobs. Recipients of tax breaks and aid such as unemployment insurance are not required to report, so the job numbers cover only about $47 billion of the $173 billion spent by Sept. 30. USA TODAY was among those that found examples of errors in that data, such as a Texas housing authority mistakenly reporting 450 jobs created by a $26,000 roofing project that actually employed six people."

This isn't the first report we've seen like this. How many will it take before the administration acknowledges that the stimulus has been an abject failure? That wasn't a serious question. This administration will NEVER acknowledge that it just wasted nearly a trillion dollars of taxpayer money.

The story continues: "The acting head of the Government Accountability Office (GAO), Gene Dodaro, told the committee his investigators found 3,978 reports where recipients reported creating a total of 58,386 jobs without spending any money. Another 9,247 reports covering $965 million in spending listed no jobs created or saved, Dodaro said."

http://www.associatedcontent.com/art...obs.html?cat=9

Now fast forward to Feb 2010:

The CNN Fact Check Desk found that:

– Last November, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that between 600,000 and 1.6 million jobs were created through the third quarter, but said "it is impossible to determine how many of the reported jobs would have existed in the absence of the stimulus package."
– Also in November, the Government Accountability Office found "significant reporting and quality issues that need to be addressed."
– Last December, The White House Office of Management and Budget changed its guidance for stimulus recipients. Instead of asking recipients to report the amount of jobs created or saved with stimulus money, the Office asked recipients to report the amount of jobs "funded" by stimulus money.

Bottom Line: The White House-reported figures on jobs that were created under the stimulus plan are not specific enough to be deemed reliable.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...id=FVXnfhW30kg

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

You can probably save more jobs with the same money than you could create, given spinup and training costs. Otherwise, there's no important difference I can see.

I agree completely. Thats the reason why I think the change took place from "created" to "saved or created" I'm not sure how to figure out what the real difference is between the two. It still seemed a little disingenuous to change it to include the saved jobs.
However, the optimist will say that the program was designed to do both ...
I think its REALLY difficult to put any accurate number on the saved part of the equation and gives the gov't a lot of wiggle room on their numbers. Perhaps they should report each of therm separately.

Well, the reporting number ends up lower in that instance. They could claim that two people got jobs, but then be open to argument that they are part-time jobs. Reporting them as hours is probably more useful as a measurement of recovery.

I agree, but the public is probably not savvy enough to deal with hours vs jobs.

None of the jobs data is based on federal government figures...but figures provided by the grant recipients.

And what is still comical is that you guys will fight it and fight it and never admit even the possibility that the stimulus program has created (at least) hundreds of thousands of jobs to date and helped slow the recession.

Do you even sense how rigidly ideological that is? Not to mention intellectually dishonest. Like most of your arguments.

And lately, you're great at find amusing columns or vids for a distraction so you can continue to avoid the facts.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Lets go back to Nov 09 and start here. From the NYT:

The only part of any of those articles that referred to the CBO's numbers was the CNN factcheck that explained why their range was so wide. The CNN factcheck was using the CBO numbers to do their factcheck.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

None of the jobs data is based on federal government figures...but figures provided by the grant recipients.

Which the Government has hung it's hat on as being factual and to date many non-governmental groups have shown them to be false or misleading, including the GAO.

And what is still comical is that you guys will fight it and fight it and never admit even the possibility that the stimulus program has created (at least) hundreds of thousands of jobs to date and helped slow the recession.

No, what is comical is that you modify your position after pages and pages of defending the lies and propaganda of this Administration and Demoncratically controlled Congress. So, now you go to "hundreds of thousands of jobs" when this country has lost millions. The numbers don't add up and your party is pissing in the wind.

Do you even sense how rigidly ideological that is? Not to mention intellectually dishonest. Like most of your arguments.

You are intellectually dishonest defending this deficit and pork barrel spending while you bankrupt our grandchildrens future with no plan to pay it off.

And lately, you're great at find amusing columns or vids for a distraction so you can continue to avoid the facts.

As you avoid the facts that counter your propaganda...

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

The CNN factcheck was using the CBO numbers to do their factcheck.

Yea, that is what the defenders of this administration is using as their range, including yourself. In fact the CBO numbers are even narrower and they have said it it basically bogus.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

If you take the low end, of 800K, it looks worse than than if you take the middle or high end? Amazing how that works.

No, I said 600k. Re-read my post.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Which the Government has hung it's hat on as being factual and to date many non-governmental groups have shown them to be false or misleading, including the GAO.

Please cite those many non-governmental groups.. GAO? Cite the section of the report, please.

I am aware of the groups that raised awareness and concern over the very small number of job reports in non-existing zip codes and attributed those clerical errors.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

Please cite those many non-governmental groups.. GAO? Cite the section of the report, please.

I am aware of the groups that raised awareness and concern over the very small number of job reports in non-existing zip codes and attributed those clerical errors.

All links have been posted. Do your own homework mate.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

No, I said 600k. Re-read my post.

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, for using the November numbers. That's why I highlighted the 8 in my correction.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

In fact the CBO numbers are even narrower and they have said it it basically bogus.

What are you trying to say here? The CBO numbers are narrower than what, and what are the CBO numbers you're talking about? Who have said what are basically bogus?

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

All links have been posted. Do your own homework mate.

I missed the links to the many non-governmental groups.

Just point me to the links.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

I missed the links to the many non-governmental groups.

Just point me to the links.

Let Google be your friend. Of course you could just look at the posts above.