Moody's: Obama jobs plan will create 1.9 million jobs

I sense the sincerity in your post.

We both want the economy to return but disagree on how to do that.

It's no coincidence that the economy began a serious recovery when the stimulus kicked in, and began to slow down when the stimulus faded.

Exactly.

Where conservatives differ with Obama is that he seems to think he must keep borrowing money and throwing it the sluggish economy for as long as it takes.

But considering how much it has cost since Obama took office and how little we have to show for it conservatives say that central planning and micro management of the economy does not work.

Obama will never borrow and spend his way out of this recession.

We $535 million to one solar panel company that contributed heavily to Obama's campaign.

That allows Obama to claim credit for creating 1,100 jobs at a cost of $500,000 each.

That would be insane even if the jobs still existed.

But they only lasted half of Obama's 4 years in office.

 

It's true that current Treasuries aren't callable. But we should call in whatever remains callable, and do whatever else we can to replace expensive debt with cheap debt. We could, for instance, repurchase the Chinese debt, then sell an offsetting $10 trillion (not necessarily to China) to get the money back. It would cost us a little in the short-run (we'd be paying a small premium for the Chinese-held debt), but save money in the long run.

I just laid out the math. It doesn't get us out of debt, but it makes the debt essentially cost-free. What part of the math do you disagree with?

 

Everyone needs to be reminded about the most important economic projection in my lifetime from Romer and Bernstein:


This was the sales tool used to slam a trillion dollar waste up your bum.

Who on earth would think this bit from Moody's is any better?
-----------------------------------------
Never forget, America.

 

Bull(*)(*)(*)(*). No one is claimiing the jobs will only last a year. The basic math is the cost of creating a job. Well over $200K per job. The private sector does it for a fraction of that.

THEN you can factor in that this is government makework, and that the jobs will not last as long as those created in the private sector, as gubmit will reguire more taxation and wealth redistribution to keep those jobs ongoing.

One more giant massive government fail. Thanks for bringing it to the table, except that it was clear you approved of this stupidity. Oh well

 

All that shows is that the recession was far worse than anyone thought.

 

If I had to venture a guess, and I'm being sincere, they probably were not on the talking points conference call.

 

Teachers are triple dip Dem targets. They are a very reliable Dem voting bloc and a great source of conscription labor and contributions near elections. They are far from the median on the intellect scale of college grads making them easily gulled. Lastly, they are the future, turning normal children into leftwad drones. No Teamster does that.

-----------------------------------------
Never forget, America.

 

Two things:
1. As noted, the "$200K per job" figure covers far more than salaries. You're counting the cost of materials for a bridge and calling it a cost to create a job. That's BS.

2. Maybe you didn't notice, but the private sector has pretty much abdicated its job-creation role. This is the very definition of stimulus: the government stepping in when the private sector can't or won't. The goal is threefold: invest in the future, keep employment up to stop a downward spiral, and spur a recovery by showing private employers that you won't let the economy drop off a cliff.

You sound just like sec, who equated infrastructure spending with mailing checks to unemployed people. Conservatives are becoming nihilists.

 

No it shows a pattern of Obama numbers never reaching the expectations they are hyped by the media and their select and inept advisers.

 

It's not as if the millions of dropouts from the public schools are going to miss the teachers who are being laid off.

 

$450 billion dollars is not something that should be based on talking points. This rhetoric he calls a bill shouldn't see the light of day until such discrepancies are addressed and explained to the public. It would be the least they could do.

 

Ah, the standard "Obama is omniscient enough to see the future perfectly, but incompetent enough for his programs to fail to meet expectations."

Projections and estimates are just that: projections and estimates. The graph RR cited also suffers from another well-known problem: it was a projection made shortly after Obama took office, before 4th-quarter 2008 numbers were released. Those numbers turned out to be *way* worse than anyone thought. It's no wonder any projections made before that data was available would be off.

But you guys know this: It's been pointed out repeatedly, on this forum, for three years. You just don't care. You're willing to lie, distort and mislead if you think it will serve your purposes. Very sad.

 

It does not matter. Obama is proposing makework. Show me where our kids have ever gotten smarter when big fed threw money at schools ? We currently budget for road maintenance. This is not about regular maintenance and upkeep. This is making work for the sake of making work.

Its $237 K per job. Possibly over $400K per job. It is lunacy.

Your second point is pure liberal socialist dumbaggery. It is your nanny state that has abdicated the motive to self-improve. Not the private sector. Government is the problem, not the solution.

 

We know what is: Epic economic fail according to a large majority of the folks.

Utter lie. It was recovering BEFORE penny one of the fraud stimulus was spent.

 

$235K per job? Not as bad as the $500K for the green jobs.

The problem is that the 235K people will not get but about half of the $447B. The rest will go to the bureaucrats that hand out the money. With our money distributers already at the limit of their endurance we will have to hire more government check writers to pass out this new money, , or we could cut taxes and let the people who earned the money in the first place hire workers and spend the money on good and services.

 

No Obama has proven time and again that when he says a number the result is always dismally less than was hyped. That sales pitch stops working pretty quick. Even one day after his jobs rhetoric we see two vastly different estimates of how many jobs this 'could' create. Yet we see the Obama bot estimate is nearly double the CNN estimate. Obama's been cooking the books to sell his failed ideas, we simply won't buy it anymore. Most of us never bought it in the first place.

 

Not buying that crap.

At a minimum it shows that the (on) crack economic team Obama assembled screwed the pooch on the most important economic projection in my lifetime.

If they're that far off, why would anyone trust anything they say? That single piece of work shows them as the frauds all Keynesians are.

-----------------------------------------
Never forget, America.

 

I did the math on this once before. Boiled down, when you figure the general waste and inefficiency of all things Big Fed you can figure only $60,000 of that actually gets on point.

 

I didn't start an OFA agitprop thread.

 

Really. So when a construction company, say, is assembling a bid to build a bridge, they add up all the materials cost, add it to their salary cost, and look at it as a cost per worker?

Of course not.

They have separate categories: labor, material, machinery, administration, etc.

If the cost of cement goes up, they don't say "hey, my cost per worker has gone up." They say, "my materials cost has gone up."

 

Using that same standard, I doubt the private sector could create a job as cheaply. If you have to include the cost of building the headquarters for a business in the cost of each job created, I sincerely doubt that the lavish corporate spenders are going to beat the government. I've seen government facilities--they are utilitarian, to say the least.

The private sector is way better than the government at wasting money, they just don't keep track of it as well and don't publish the figures as clearly.

All of which should be non-contentious, but for some reason the Republicans like economic despair and rampant unemployment.

 

You mean when you use your bull(*)(*)(*)(*) out-of-ass wishful thinking figures...

Actual figures on government waste, not so much.

 

It has nothing to do with hurting your precious cult leader. It has everything to do with the abject failure that is his bastardized Keynesian economic policy which he erroneously believes will get our economy back on track. It's just a giant waste of resources that will only further exacerbate the problem that created this mess in the first place, which is the misallocation of resources and the aggregation of malinvestment.

 

Obama has so severely hurt the American people, why should we go along with his "more of the same" "jobs program"?