Obama: Do what I say to address economic crisis, or else!

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

What I find amusing is how it went from creating or saving 2 mill to creating 3 mill. A whole extra million jobs, all created, not saved. And all it took were a few meetings.

[Ban Hammer 13,346]

What I find amusing is how it went from creating or saving 2 mill to creating 3 mill. A whole extra million jobs, all created, not saved. And all it took were a few meetings.

it's magic! maybe he can wave a magic wand too and make the trade and budget deficits go away.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

What I find amusing is how it went from creating or saving 2 mill to creating 3 mill. A whole extra million jobs, all created, not saved. And all it took were a few meetings.

it's magic! maybe he can wave a magic wand too and make the trade and budget deficits go away.

All you need to eliminate the national public debt is to default on it. Easy peasy.

Tell the Chinese, I know you paid good money for our paper but uhhh, we've changed our minds. We're gonna keep your money and oh, the paper isn't worth anything anymore. Sorry!

[nowhereman 1]

yes, saving and creating are two different things.

would have been more heartening if she said, "save and create" not "save or create"

It turned into "save or create" shortly after he won.

noticed that, too...

January 03, 2009 9:52 AM

In his radio address today, President-elect Obama uses some new language when discussing what he wants the stimulus package to achieve in terms of jobs. First off, he has a name for the package -- the "American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan."

The president-elect says he wants to "create three million new jobs" -- this is a change from a few weeks ago, when he said he wanted the plan to create OR SAVE two million jobs.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/20...elect-make.html

You guys are splitting hairs (which is bad) & have condoned the actions of an awful administration for 8 years (which is far worse). 1 +1 = 0 (credibility).

[AlHayatZween 2]

What I find amusing is how it went from creating or saving 2 mill to creating 3 mill. A whole extra million jobs, all created, not saved. And all it took were a few meetings.

woo-hoo!

maybe it is that easy... just a few meetings...

i hope he creates a new job for me!

[mRx 16]

What I find amusing is how it went from creating or saving 2 mill to creating 3 mill. A whole extra million jobs, all created, not saved. And all it took were a few meetings.

The whole idea of "creating" jobs is a fallacy.

The government cannot "create" jobs, it can only divert the workforce from the efficient private sector to the less efficient public sector.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

What I find amusing is how it went from creating or saving 2 mill to creating 3 mill. A whole extra million jobs, all created, not saved. And all it took were a few meetings.

The whole idea of "creating" jobs is a fallacy.

The government cannot "create" jobs, it can only divert the workforce from the efficient private sector to the less efficient public sector.

Workers exist in other states as well.

Some are unemployed.

Some are no longer considered part of the labor force.

[Dan J 277]

What I find amusing is how it went from creating or saving 2 mill to creating 3 mill. A whole extra million jobs, all created, not saved. And all it took were a few meetings.

The whole idea of "creating" jobs is a fallacy.

The government cannot "create" jobs, it can only divert the workforce from the efficient private sector to the less efficient public sector.

Yes and no.

The government can put people to work that were otherwise not working. By working, they are contributing to economic growth by the goods and services they purchase from what they earn. The infrastructure improvements will make other business more efficient.

If a person is not working, they will just end up using government services and contributing very little to getting the economy growing again.

Of course in the short term, this will cost the government a lot of money. But it has the potential of generating greater growth in the long term than tax rebates or tax cuts do.

[mRx 16]

What I find amusing is how it went from creating or saving 2 mill to creating 3 mill. A whole extra million jobs, all created, not saved. And all it took were a few meetings.

The whole idea of "creating" jobs is a fallacy.

The government cannot "create" jobs, it can only divert the workforce from the efficient private sector to the less efficient public sector.

Yes and no.

The government can put people to work that were otherwise not working. By working, they are contributing to economic growth by the goods and services they purchase from what they earn. The infrastructure improvements will make other business more efficient.

If a person is not working, they will just end up using government services and contributing very little to getting the economy growing again.

Of course in the short term, this will cost the government a lot of money. But it has the potential of generating greater growth in the long term than tax rebates or tax cuts do.

The money to fund these government make-work jobs has to come from somewhere. It comes from the efficient private sector through taxation. This forces businesses to make cuts which would otherwise be not needed in the absence of additional taxation. These cuts are made through a combination of increasing the price, decreasing the workforce through wage cuts (unlikely) or laying people off. This is how the private sector is plundered to service the public sector. Therefore no additional wealth or jobs are created. They are only diverted from more efficient areas.

[chri'stina 190]

yes, saving and creating are two different things.

would have been more heartening if she said, "save and create" not "save or create"

It turned into "save or create" shortly after he won.

noticed that, too...

January 03, 2009 9:52 AM

In his radio address today, President-elect Obama uses some new language when discussing what he wants the stimulus package to achieve in terms of jobs. First off, he has a name for the package -- the "American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan."

The president-elect says he wants to "create three million new jobs" -- this is a change from a few weeks ago, when he said he wanted the plan to create OR SAVE two million jobs.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/20...elect-make.html

You guys are splitting hairs (which is bad) & have condoned the actions of an awful administration for 8 years (which is far worse). 1 +1 = 0 (credibility).

Who are the "you guys" that you are referring to in this post? AJ and AlhayatZween? lol

[AlHayatZween 2]

yes, saving and creating are two different things.

would have been more heartening if she said, "save and create" not "save or create"

It turned into "save or create" shortly after he won.

noticed that, too...

January 03, 2009 9:52 AM

In his radio address today, President-elect Obama uses some new language when discussing what he wants the stimulus package to achieve in terms of jobs. First off, he has a name for the package -- the "American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan."

The president-elect says he wants to "create three million new jobs" -- this is a change from a few weeks ago, when he said he wanted the plan to create OR SAVE two million jobs.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/20...elect-make.html

You guys are splitting hairs (which is bad) & have condoned the actions of an awful administration for 8 years (which is far worse). 1 +1 = 0 (credibility).

Who are the "you guys" that you are referring to in this post? AJ and AlhayatZween? lol

And Nowhereman, i know you didn't just say i condoned 8 yearsof the Bush admin?! Surely, you misinterpreted my post... i'm the resident socialist for goodness sake...

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I think calling the private sector efficient is a bit of a fallacy, certainly when it comes to job creation.

Even now there are still people who doss about on the internet all day, file frivolous expense claims or do work that ends up being pointless or duplicated - because departments don't communicate effectively.

[chri'stina 190]

yes, saving and creating are two different things.

would have been more heartening if she said, "save and create" not "save or create"

It turned into "save or create" shortly after he won.

noticed that, too...

January 03, 2009 9:52 AM

In his radio address today, President-elect Obama uses some new language when discussing what he wants the stimulus package to achieve in terms of jobs. First off, he has a name for the package -- the "American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan."

The president-elect says he wants to "create three million new jobs" -- this is a change from a few weeks ago, when he said he wanted the plan to create OR SAVE two million jobs.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/20...elect-make.html

You guys are splitting hairs (which is bad) & have condoned the actions of an awful administration for 8 years (which is far worse). 1 +1 = 0 (credibility).

Who are the "you guys" that you are referring to in this post? AJ and AlhayatZween? lol

And Nowhereman, i know you didn't just say i condoned 8 yearsof the Bush admin?! Surely, you misinterpreted my post... i'm the resident socialist for goodness sake...

That's why I was laughing, if he was meaning that you and AJ condoned the actions of the Bush admin for 8 years. It's so obvious you both wanted Obama to win and your critique is normal. Sorry Nowhereman, you are very partisan in my opinion. But you may think I am just another right winger.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

What I find amusing is how it went from creating or saving 2 mill to creating 3 mill. A whole extra million jobs, all created, not saved. And all it took were a few meetings.

The whole idea of "creating" jobs is a fallacy.

The government cannot "create" jobs, it can only divert the workforce from the efficient private sector to the less efficient public sector.

Workers exist in other states as well.

Some are unemployed.

Some are no longer considered part of the labor force.

Is it also true in the US that if you're not collecting unemployment benefit - that you're not counted as "unemployed" for the purposes of gathering employment statistics?

[Ban Hammer 13,346]

That's why I was laughing, if he was meaning that you and AJ condoned the actions of the Bush admin for 8 years. It's so obvious you both wanted Obama to win and your critique is normal. Sorry Nowhereman, you are very partisan in my opinion. But you may think I am just another right winger.

saying he's partisan makes you a right winger