Sponsored Content

Intermarkets' Privacy Policy

Donate to Ace of Spades HQ!

Recent Entries
Absent Friends
Captain Hate 2023
moon_over_vermont 2023
westminsterdogshow 2023
Ann Wilson(Empire1) 2022
Dave In Texas 2022
Jesse in D.C. 2022
OregonMuse 2022
redc1c4 2021
Tami 2021
Chavez the Hugo 2020
Ibguy 2020
Rickl 2019
Joffen 2014
AoSHQ Writers Group
A site for members of the Horde to post their stories seeking beta readers, editing help, brainstorming, and story ideas. Also to share links to potential publishing outlets, writing help sites, and videos posting tips to get published. Contact OrangeEnt for info:
maildrop62 at proton dot me
Cutting The Cord And Email Security
Moron Meet-Ups

Can Fat Jokes Really Turn an Election Around? | Main | Polls: Fat Guy Has Slender Lead
October 30, 2009

CBS News: Obama's Just Kinda Making Stuff Up About Jobs "Saved or Created"

Two big points I want to make:

First of all, that Florida day care center that claimed Spendulus money "saved or created" 129 jobs when in fact the money they got was simply used to give all existing employees raises?

That's not a "mistake."

When the WH demanded that those who received Spendulus money "report" back on how many jobs were "saved or created," they insisted upon a nonsensical rule: If a single dollar of Spendulus was spent on an employee's salary, whether that employee was a new employee or an old one, that gets counted as a job "saved or created." If he's a new employee, that job was created. If he's an existing employee, that job was saved.

For $1.

Yes, $1. Because the nonsensical rules the White House told these people to count "saved or created" jobs by simply stated: If any employee's salary is paid, in whole or in part (any part!), count that as a job "saved or created" by the spending.

And then report that number back to us.

Note that the White House's rules do not seek to discover which jobs really were "saved or created." To come to that conclusion, one would need a set of more rigorous rules -- which excluded some jobs from the "saved or created" category, rather than attempting to include them all under that rubric.

For example, you'd need a rule like: "If the funding pays more than 10% of an employee's salary, and the management feels the employee would not have been hired, or would have been fired, but for that spending, then this job should be counted as 'saved or created. "

They didn't do that. They didn't set a 10% threshold, or even a 1% threshold. A single dollar counts as saving or creating a job.

Further, they never asked if the employee would be out of a job but for that spending.

Because they didn't want to actually find out which jobs were saved or created. They just wanted as large a number as possible, even if it made no sense, and had nothing at all to do with jobs really affected by the spending.

So, if a factory gets $5000, and divides that, $50 a worker, among 100 workers, you know how many jobs were "saved or created" according to Obama?

100. Even though $5000 obviously doesn't cover a single part-time salary, let alone 100 full-time salaries.

If a factory gets $5000, and divides that, $1 a worker, among 5000 workers, Obama's rules say 5000 jobs were saved or created.

And note that in neither case does the employee have to be a new one. It could be a guy working there for 30 years, whom the company would never even consider firing. Per the rules, if he gets 50 bucks, or even a single dollar, his job was right there "saved" by Bonny Prince Barack.

So the Florida day-care center that gave themselves all a small raise didn't make a "mistake." They reported the numbers precisely as Obama -- who is signing their checks, after all -- dictated.

The problem is not a "mistake" in implementation. The problem is that rules are sham from the start, contrived to force an absurd conclusion.

The second point is this: At no point in all of American history has the metric ever been what jobs a president has "saved or created." The metric has always been the concrete, easier-to-determine number of how many jobs were lost and how many were gained. There has never before been a "saved" category, ever, and yes, all other presidents in an ailing economy would of course like to shift focus from the jobs lost to those they can claim were "saved."

It is only Obama -- special rules for special people! -- who has ever been so shameless as to attempt to shift the terms of debate to something so favorable to him (and so hard to determine), and it is only in Obama's case has the media been so compliant they went along with the charade.

The media should ask themselves why Bush never sought credit for what jobs he had supposedly "saved" -- surely he "saved" some, eh? He could not have gone 8 years with multiple tax cuts and multiple stimulus packages without ever once "saving" a job that would have otherwise have been lost -- and what their reaction would have been if Bush, rather than President Prissypants, had demanded they respect this brand-new, politically-helpful metric of "jobs saved."

digg this
posted by Ace at 12:16 PM

| Access Comments

Recent Comments
Cardi B: "[i] Now women are writing more degrading lyrics t ..."

Bulgaroctonus: "I've read that John Hurt based his portrayal of Ca ..."

Divide by Zero [/i]: " [i]Time to start looking at NY AG Letitia James. ..."

Braenyard: "363 Cont'd- Hurt's portrayal of Caligula was so br ..."

browndog on the hunt for Karla: "341 I believe "I Claudius" (12 episodes, iirc) tak ..."

BurtTC: "I understand he probably was "sleeping" his way to ..."

Adirondack Patriot: "Hoo-Boy: Cell Phone Data Shows... Well, used to ..."

People's Hippo Voice: " I understand he probably was "sleeping" his ..."

Elric Blade: "345 . . . and how women expected and allowed thems ..."

AnonyBotymousDrivel Remembers Babbitt and Perna: "BurtTC: [i]"But these days working as a lawyer app ..."

Wolfus Aurelius, Dreaming of Elsewhere [/i] [/b] : "[i]A highlight among the many in that show is the ..."

I'm Gumby Damn It!: "12,000 texts? The odds are Fannay and Sweet Dick w ..."

Recent Entries

Polls! Polls! Polls!
Frequently Asked Questions
The (Almost) Complete Paul Anka Integrity Kick
Top Top Tens
Greatest Hitjobs

The Ace of Spades HQ Sex-for-Money Skankathon
A D&D Guide to the Democratic Candidates
Margaret Cho: Just Not Funny
More Margaret Cho Abuse
Margaret Cho: Still Not Funny
Iraqi Prisoner Claims He Was Raped... By Woman
Wonkette Announces "Morning Zoo" Format
John Kerry's "Plan" Causes Surrender of Moqtada al-Sadr's Militia
World Muslim Leaders Apologize for Nick Berg's Beheading
Michael Moore Goes on Lunchtime Manhattan Death-Spree
Milestone: Oliver Willis Posts 400th "Fake News Article" Referencing Britney Spears
Liberal Economists Rue a "New Decade of Greed"
Artificial Insouciance: Maureen Dowd's Word Processor Revolts Against Her Numbing Imbecility
Intelligence Officials Eye Blogs for Tips
They Done Found Us Out, Cletus: Intrepid Internet Detective Figures Out Our Master Plan
Shock: Josh Marshall Almost Mentions Sarin Discovery in Iraq
Leather-Clad Biker Freaks Terrorize Australian Town
When Clinton Was President, Torture Was Cool
What Wonkette Means When She Explains What Tina Brown Means
Wonkette's Stand-Up Act
Wankette HQ Gay-Rumors Du Jour
Here's What's Bugging Me: Goose and Slider
My Own Micah Wright Style Confession of Dishonesty
Outraged "Conservatives" React to the FMA
An On-Line Impression of Dennis Miller Having Sex with a Kodiak Bear
The Story the Rightwing Media Refuses to Report!
Our Lunch with David "Glengarry Glen Ross" Mamet
The House of Love: Paul Krugman
A Michael Moore Mystery (TM)
The Dowd-O-Matic!
Liberal Consistency and Other Myths
Kepler's Laws of Liberal Media Bias
John Kerry-- The Splunge! Candidate
"Divisive" Politics & "Attacks on Patriotism" (very long)
The Donkey ("The Raven" parody)
Powered by
Movable Type 2.64