Robert Gibbs gets Owned!

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Gibbs gets all shuffled around! What a liar!

[thepizzadude 26]

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Gibbs wants the e-mail from Major so he can check it against the "list"?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

After a decade, or so, we will finaly get to see the emails under the FIA, looking something like this:

To: flag@whitehouse.gov

From:

<Personal Information Redacted>

Subject: FWD: Obama is a poopy butt

• To:
  <Personal Information Redacted>

• From:
  <Personal Information Redacted>

• Subject: Obama is a poopy butt
• Hey! Have you heard? Obama is a big poopy butt and wants to kill old people.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Here's Fox's WH Senior Correspondent Major Garrett just showing how uninformed he is...

He's a tool.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Here's Fox's WH Senior Correspondent Major Garrett just showing how uninformed he is...

He's a tool.

How so?

[Ban Hammer 13,342]

Here's Fox's WH Senior Correspondent Major Garrett just showing how uninformed he is...

He's a tool.

How so?

by questioning the supreme leader!

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Here's Fox's WH Senior Correspondent Major Garrett just showing how uninformed he is...

He's a tool.

How so?

by questioning the supreme leader!

How dare Major question him that way.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Figures. The Fox News sheep can't tell the different between a tree and a railroad post.

Baaaaaaaaa.

Here's another example of this tool, Major Garrett, a right wing hack pretending to be an objective journalist:

GARRET: You talk about the cost of inaction, I'd like to ask you a question about the cost of action. The CBO has come out with an analysis of the job creating potential of the Senate bill. You might regard these numbers as the upside of that -- 2.8 million to 8.2 million jobs over three years. The cost side -- that depends on the multiplier effect the CBO uses on the stimulative effect of the bill -- it also says the cost, on a per job basis, would range from $100,000 to $300,000 for a job created. How valid a measure ---

GIBBS: Is that also over a three year period? That's divided by a three year period?

GARRETT: According to what I've read in the CBO report, yes. So do you consider that a valid metric, and is that a worthwhile cost for the American people to evaluate as they look at not only the cost of this bill, but also the cost of inaction.

Garrett's number sounds simple and sexy. Basically, cost of bill divided by number of jobs created = cost per job. Right?

Actually, no. The benefits of the stimulus bill cannot be measured solely in terms of jobs created over the next three years. Rebuilding our national infrastructure will having a lasting impact, well beyond three years; simply dividing the total cost of the bill by the number of jobs created over the next three years is not a meaningful way of evaluating it.

But the real problem with Garrett's claim isn't just that it's gobbledygook.

It's also a flat-out lie.

The number he cites -- $100,000 to $300,000 per job -- does not appear anywhere in the CBO report. It's a number Garrett -- or someone at the GOP central committee (or FNC headquarters, as if there were a difference) -- derived from CBO's job projection numbers.

Here's what the CBO actually said about job creation and the stimulus bill:

By the end of 2010, CBO estimates, about $140,000 of additional GDP would lead to one additional person employed.

Note that this is a very different statistic than the one made up by Garrett. What the CBO is saying is that the job creation potential of the stimulus bill is directly related to how much the legislation ends up boosting GDP.

In other words, the CBO is saying the more the legislation boosts GDP, the more it will boost employment.

This is an important concept because not all stimulus spending is created equal. According to this CBO report, for example, the types of spending favored by Major Garrett and his FNC cronies will have the smallest impact on the GDP, and therefore the least impact on job creation.

Here's the CBO's estimated impact of various types of stimulus spending:

What this CBO report tells us isn't what Major Garrett says it tells us. Instead of serving as a warning against too much spending, it is actually a roadmap for putting together stimulus package with the right kind of spending.

And as it turns out, the programs favored by President Obama and the Democratic Party are the one that will have the greatest impact on GDP, and therefore will create the most jobs.

Just giving more money to the people who already have it -- as Major Garrett would have us do -- won't get the job done.

http://www.dailykos.com/tag/Major%20Garrett

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Figures. The Fox News sheep can't tell the different between a tree and a railroad post.

Baaaaaaaaa.

Here's another example of this tool, Major Garrett, a right wing hack pretending to be an objective journalist:

GARRET: You talk about the cost of inaction, I'd like to ask you a question about the cost of action. The CBO has come out with an analysis of the job creating potential of the Senate bill. You might regard these numbers as the upside of that -- 2.8 million to 8.2 million jobs over three years. The cost side -- that depends on the multiplier effect the CBO uses on the stimulative effect of the bill -- it also says the cost, on a per job basis, would range from $100,000 to $300,000 for a job created. How valid a measure ---

GIBBS: Is that also over a three year period? That's divided by a three year period?

GARRETT: According to what I've read in the CBO report, yes. So do you consider that a valid metric, and is that a worthwhile cost for the American people to evaluate as they look at not only the cost of this bill, but also the cost of inaction.

Garrett's number sounds simple and sexy. Basically, cost of bill divided by number of jobs created = cost per job. Right?

Actually, no. The benefits of the stimulus bill cannot be measured solely in terms of jobs created over the next three years. Rebuilding our national infrastructure will having a lasting impact, well beyond three years; simply dividing the total cost of the bill by the number of jobs created over the next three years is not a meaningful way of evaluating it.

But the real problem with Garrett's claim isn't just that it's gobbledygook.

It's also a flat-out lie.

The number he cites -- $100,000 to $300,000 per job -- does not appear anywhere in the CBO report. It's a number Garrett -- or someone at the GOP central committee (or FNC headquarters, as if there were a difference) -- derived from CBO's job projection numbers.

Here's what the CBO actually said about job creation and the stimulus bill:

By the end of 2010, CBO estimates, about $140,000 of additional GDP would lead to one additional person employed.

Note that this is a very different statistic than the one made up by Garrett. What the CBO is saying is that the job creation potential of the stimulus bill is directly related to how much the legislation ends up boosting GDP.

In other words, the CBO is saying the more the legislation boosts GDP, the more it will boost employment.

This is an important concept because not all stimulus spending is created equal. According to this CBO report, for example, the types of spending favored by Major Garrett and his FNC cronies will have the smallest impact on the GDP, and therefore the least impact on job creation.

Here's the CBO's estimated impact of various types of stimulus spending:

What this CBO report tells us isn't what Major Garrett says it tells us. Instead of serving as a warning against too much spending, it is actually a roadmap for putting together stimulus package with the right kind of spending.

And as it turns out, the programs favored by President Obama and the Democratic Party are the one that will have the greatest impact on GDP, and therefore will create the most jobs.

Just giving more money to the people who already have it -- as Major Garrett would have us do -- won't get the job done.

http://www.dailykos.com/tag/Major%20Garrett

Here ya go Steve, take your pick. Why are rebutting with a link to the daily kos? Awwww, the simplistic nature of desperation.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Figures. The Fox News sheep can't tell the different between a tree and a railroad post.

Baaaaaaaaa.

Here's another example of this tool, Major Garrett, a right wing hack pretending to be an objective journalist:

GARRET: You talk about the cost of inaction, I'd like to ask you a question about the cost of action. The CBO has come out with an analysis of the job creating potential of the Senate bill. You might regard these numbers as the upside of that -- 2.8 million to 8.2 million jobs over three years. The cost side -- that depends on the multiplier effect the CBO uses on the stimulative effect of the bill -- it also says the cost, on a per job basis, would range from $100,000 to $300,000 for a job created. How valid a measure ---

GIBBS: Is that also over a three year period? That's divided by a three year period?

GARRETT: According to what I've read in the CBO report, yes. So do you consider that a valid metric, and is that a worthwhile cost for the American people to evaluate as they look at not only the cost of this bill, but also the cost of inaction.

Garrett's number sounds simple and sexy. Basically, cost of bill divided by number of jobs created = cost per job. Right?

Actually, no. The benefits of the stimulus bill cannot be measured solely in terms of jobs created over the next three years. Rebuilding our national infrastructure will having a lasting impact, well beyond three years; simply dividing the total cost of the bill by the number of jobs created over the next three years is not a meaningful way of evaluating it.

But the real problem with Garrett's claim isn't just that it's gobbledygook.

It's also a flat-out lie.

The number he cites -- $100,000 to $300,000 per job -- does not appear anywhere in the CBO report. It's a number Garrett -- or someone at the GOP central committee (or FNC headquarters, as if there were a difference) -- derived from CBO's job projection numbers.

Here's what the CBO actually said about job creation and the stimulus bill:

By the end of 2010, CBO estimates, about $140,000 of additional GDP would lead to one additional person employed.

Note that this is a very different statistic than the one made up by Garrett. What the CBO is saying is that the job creation potential of the stimulus bill is directly related to how much the legislation ends up boosting GDP.

In other words, the CBO is saying the more the legislation boosts GDP, the more it will boost employment.

This is an important concept because not all stimulus spending is created equal. According to this CBO report, for example, the types of spending favored by Major Garrett and his FNC cronies will have the smallest impact on the GDP, and therefore the least impact on job creation.

Here's the CBO's estimated impact of various types of stimulus spending:

What this CBO report tells us isn't what Major Garrett says it tells us. Instead of serving as a warning against too much spending, it is actually a roadmap for putting together stimulus package with the right kind of spending.

And as it turns out, the programs favored by President Obama and the Democratic Party are the one that will have the greatest impact on GDP, and therefore will create the most jobs.

Just giving more money to the people who already have it -- as Major Garrett would have us do -- won't get the job done.

http://www.dailykos.com/tag/Major%20Garrett

Here ya go Steve, take your pick. Why are rebutting with a link to the daily kos? Awwww, the simplistic nature of desperation.

Now, wait a minute! I saw Major Garrett trashed on both The Daily Show, and The Colbert Report, so it must be true!

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Now, wait a minute! I saw Major Garrett trashed on both The Daily Show, and The Colbert Report, so it must be true!

[mawilson 2,133]

Someone else might have signed them up as a prank, just to see their reaction when they get an email from Axelrod

[meowmeowmeow 1]

idiots....

[alienlovechild 75]

I got an unsoliticed e-mail from the White House, too.

"From: David Axelrod, The White House (info@messages.whitehouse.gov)

Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2009 10:22:16 PM

Dear Friend,

This is probably one of the longest emails I’ve ever sent, but it could be the most important.

Across the country we are seeing vigorous debate about health insurance reform. Unfortunately, some of the old tactics we know so well are back — even the viral emails that fly unchecked and under the radar, spreading all sorts of lies and distortions.

As President Obama said at the town hall in New Hampshire, “where we do disagree, let's disagree over things that are real, not these wild misrepresentations that bear no resemblance to anything that's actually been proposed.”

So let’s start a chain email of our own. At the end of my email, you’ll find a lot of information about health insurance reform, distilled into 8 ways reform provides security and stability to those with or without coverage, 8 common myths about reform and 8 reasons we need health insurance reform now.

Right now, someone you know probably has a question about reform that could be answered by what’s below. So what are you waiting for? Forward this email.

Thanks,

David

David Axelrod

Senior Adviser to the President

P.S. We launched www.WhiteHouse.gov/realitycheck this week to knock down the rumors and lies that are floating around the internet. You can find the information below, and much more, there. For example, we've just added a video of Nancy-Ann DeParle from our Health Reform Office tackling a viral email head on. Check it out:

8 ways reform provides security and stability to those with or without coverage

Ends Discrimination for Pre-Existing Conditions: Insurance companies will be prohibited from refusing you coverage because of your medical history.

Ends Exorbitant Out-of-Pocket Expenses, Deductibles or Co-Pays: Insurance companies will have to abide by yearly caps on how much they can charge for out-of-pocket expenses.

Ends Cost-Sharing for Preventive Care: Insurance companies must fully cover, without charge, regular checkups and tests that help you prevent illness, such as mammograms or eye and foot exams for diabetics.

Ends Dropping of Coverage for Seriously Ill: Insurance companies will be prohibited from dropping or watering down insurance coverage for those who become seriously ill.

Ends Gender Discrimination: Insurance companies will be prohibited from charging you more because of your gender.

Ends Annual or Lifetime Caps on Coverage: Insurance companies will be prevented from placing annual or lifetime caps on the coverage you receive.

Extends Coverage for Young Adults: Children would continue to be eligible for family coverage through the age of 26.

Guarantees Insurance Renewal: Insurance companies will be required to renew any policy as long as the policyholder pays their premium in full. Insurance companies won't be allowed to refuse renewal because someone became sick.

Learn more and get details: http://www.WhiteHouse.gov/health-insurance...er-protections/

8 common myths about health insurance reform

Reform will stop "rationing" - not increase it: It’s a myth that reform will mean a "government takeover" of health care or lead to "rationing." To the contrary, reform will forbid many forms of rationing that are currently being used by insurance companies.

We can’t afford reform: It's the status quo we can't afford. It’s a myth that reform will bust the budget. To the contrary, the President has identified ways to pay for the vast majority of the up-front costs by cutting waste, fraud, and abuse within existing government health programs; ending big subsidies to insurance companies; and increasing efficiency with such steps as coordinating care and streamlining paperwork. In the long term, reform can help bring down costs that will otherwise lead to a fiscal crisis.

Reform would encourage "euthanasia": It does not. It’s a malicious myth that reform would encourage or even require euthanasia for seniors. For seniors who want to consult with their family and physicians about end-of life decisions, reform will help to cover these voluntary, private consultations for those who want help with these personal and difficult family decisions.

Vets' health care is safe and sound: It’s a myth that health insurance reform will affect veterans' access to the care they get now. To the contrary, the President's budget significantly expands coverage under the VA, extending care to 500,000 more veterans who were previously excluded. The VA Healthcare system will continue to be available for all eligible veterans.

Reform will benefit small business - not burden it: It’s a myth that health insurance reform will hurt small businesses. To the contrary, reform will ease the burdens on small businesses, provide tax credits to help them pay for employee coverage and help level the playing field with big firms who pay much less to cover their employees on average.

Your Medicare is safe, and stronger with reform: It’s myth that Health Insurance Reform would be financed by cutting Medicare benefits. To the contrary, reform will improve the long-term financial health of Medicare, ensure better coordination, eliminate waste and unnecessary subsidies to insurance companies, and help to close the Medicare "doughnut" hole to make prescription drugs more affordable for seniors.

You can keep your own insurance: It’s myth that reform will force you out of your current insurance plan or force you to change doctors. To the contrary, reform will expand your choices, not eliminate them.

No, government will not do anything with your bank account: It is an absurd myth that government will be in charge of your bank accounts. Health insurance reform will simplify administration, making it easier and more convenient for you to pay bills in a method that you choose. Just like paying a phone bill or a utility bill, you can pay by traditional check, or by a direct electronic payment. And forms will be standardized so they will be easier to understand. The choice is up to you – and the same rules of privacy will apply as they do for all other electronic payments that people make.

Learn more and get details:

http://www.WhiteHouse.gov/realitycheck

http://www.WhiteHouse.gov/realitycheck/faq

8 Reasons We Need Health Insurance Reform Now

Coverage Denied to Millions: A recent national survey estimated that 12.6 million non-elderly adults – 36 percent of those who tried to purchase health insurance directly from an insurance company in the individual insurance market – were in fact discriminated against because of a pre-existing condition in the previous three years or dropped from coverage when they became seriously ill. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/denied...rage/index.html

Less Care for More Costs: With each passing year, Americans are paying more for health care coverage. Employer-sponsored health insurance premiums have nearly doubled since 2000, a rate three times faster than wages. In 2008, the average premium for a family plan purchased through an employer was $12,680, nearly the annual earnings of a full-time minimum wage job. Americans pay more than ever for health insurance, but get less coverage. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/hiddencosts/index.html

Roadblocks to Care for Women: Women’s reproductive health requires more regular contact with health care providers, including yearly pap smears, mammograms, and obstetric care. Women are also more likely to report fair or poor health than men (9.5% versus 9.0%). While rates of chronic conditions such as diabetes and high blood pressure are similar to men, women are twice as likely to suffer from headaches and are more likely to experience joint, back or neck pain. These chronic conditions often require regular and frequent treatment and follow-up care. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/women/index.html

Hard Times in the Heartland: Throughout rural America, there are nearly 50 million people who face challenges in accessing health care. The past several decades have consistently shown higher rates of poverty, mortality, uninsurance, and limited access to a primary health care provider in rural areas. With the recent economic downturn, there is potential for an increase in many of the health disparities and access concerns that are already elevated in rural communities. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/hardtimes

Small Businesses Struggle to Provide Health Coverage: Nearly one-third of the uninsured – 13 million people – are employees of firms with less than 100 workers. From 2000 to 2007, the proportion of non-elderly Americans covered by employer-based health insurance fell from 66% to 61%. Much of this decline stems from small business. The percentage of small businesses offering coverage dropped from 68% to 59%, while large firms held stable at 99%. About a third of such workers in firms with fewer than 50 employees obtain insurance through a spouse. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/helpbottomline

The Tragedies are Personal: Half of all personal bankruptcies are at least partly the result of medical expenses. The typical elderly couple may have to save nearly $300,000 to pay for health costs not covered by Medicare alone. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/inaction

Diminishing Access to Care: From 2000 to 2007, the proportion of non-elderly Americans covered by employer-based health insurance fell from 66% to 61%. An estimated 87 million people - one in every three Americans under the age of 65 - were uninsured at some point in 2007 and 2008. More than 80% of the uninsured are in working families. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/inacti...hing/index.html

The Trends are Troubling: Without reform, health care costs will continue to skyrocket unabated, putting unbearable strain on families, businesses, and state and federal government budgets. Perhaps the most visible sign of the need for health care reform is the 46 million Americans currently without health insurance - projections suggest that this number will rise to about 72 million in 2040 in the absence of reform. Learn more: http://www.WhiteHouse.gov/assets/documents...Care_Report.pdf