Saved or Created Jobs? Not as many as claimed

[scandal 951]

democrat math

Oh for crying out loud Charles.

You know you really can do better than that, if you try.

It's not Democrat math, any more than it's Republican math.

It simply the reality that trying to directly correlate the job growth to stimulus dollars is very difficult to do.

The fact that this is all very politicized doesn't change that basic fact.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

What? It's a lie? say it isn't so Batman!

Government cannot create jobs, except government jobs and I would rather people collect welfare or unemployment while they look for real work, most of them are more valuable and less dangerous to society to stay home and collect unemployment.

Government cannot "save" jobs except by taking money from jobs which are in demand and giving it for jobs which are not in demand (building Chevrolets at $97 per hour, for example) Any jobs "saved" will be "lost" when government stops "saving" them. when will that happen? When private business creates OTHER jobs for them to go to. But private business would create other jobs sooner if the government stopped confiscating their money to create and save unneeded jobs...when the only job the politicians are interested in saving is their OWN!

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Its never been a perfect science as to estimating how many jobs are created/saved. There are many factors that go into an employment decision and the stimulus is just one of them.

Of course, this is a damned if you do and damned if you don't situation. If the Obama administration didn't put out a number, conservatives would complain about accountability (of which they didn't do so well themselves in Iraq) and if Obama puts out a number, they will complain about the impossible task of not meeting it.

Of course, the Republicans don't really have a plan of their own. Just not what Obama and the Democrats want.

It is absolutely proven. clinically and scientifically, private business creates more jobs per the $ spent than government, there simply is no way around it. The government confiscates money from people working in, say, massachusetts. The money goes to Washington Dc and gets put in the centrifuge and a few billion is "spun out" to pay for those office buildings, bureau Czars and such and then some of it is given back to the the state, or given to another state, who finally gets to use it for a road project that could have been paid for with a fraction of that money if collected at the state or local level. Private business eliminates the 186,000 government "middle men" and gets right to work.

It is just beyond comprehension to look to a government to fix a failing economy, it is way out of their league. If a system, such as free enterprise, is in place, the economy will correct itself, as it has in the country in the past. Government having nothing to do with it, but government claiming credit or fading heat as needed. If a system is not in place that can correct the problem, such as in the Soviet Union, the system will collapse. We can only paray that the good system on place takes over and restores itself before the government can do any more damage by way of fixing it.

[Dan J 277]

What? It's a lie? say it isn't so Batman!

Government cannot create jobs, except government jobs and I would rather people collect welfare or unemployment while they look for real work, most of them are more valuable and less dangerous to society to stay home and collect unemployment.

Government cannot "save" jobs except by taking money from jobs which are in demand and giving it for jobs which are not in demand (building Chevrolets at $97 per hour, for example) Any jobs "saved" will be "lost" when government stops "saving" them. when will that happen? When private business creates OTHER jobs for them to go to. But private business would create other jobs sooner if the government stopped confiscating their money to create and save unneeded jobs...when the only job the politicians are interested in saving is their OWN!

The entire defence industry would not really exist without the government. I guess you could in a sense argue that the are government jobs, but few in the industry make government salaries.

[Dan J 277]

Its never been a perfect science as to estimating how many jobs are created/saved. There are many factors that go into an employment decision and the stimulus is just one of them.

Of course, this is a damned if you do and damned if you don't situation. If the Obama administration didn't put out a number, conservatives would complain about accountability (of which they didn't do so well themselves in Iraq) and if Obama puts out a number, they will complain about the impossible task of not meeting it.

Of course, the Republicans don't really have a plan of their own. Just not what Obama and the Democrats want.

It is absolutely proven. clinically and scientifically, private business creates more jobs per the $ spent than government, there simply is no way around it. The government confiscates money from people working in, say, massachusetts. The money goes to Washington Dc and gets put in the centrifuge and a few billion is "spun out" to pay for those office buildings, bureau Czars and such and then some of it is given back to the the state, or given to another state, who finally gets to use it for a road project that could have been paid for with a fraction of that money if collected at the state or local level. Private business eliminates the 186,000 government "middle men" and gets right to work.

It is just beyond comprehension to look to a government to fix a failing economy, it is way out of their league. If a system, such as free enterprise, is in place, the economy will correct itself, as it has in the country in the past. Government having nothing to do with it, but government claiming credit or fading heat as needed. If a system is not in place that can correct the problem, such as in the Soviet Union, the system will collapse. We can only paray that the good system on place takes over and restores itself before the government can do any more damage by way of fixing it.

Business creates jobs when it needs to, not because it can. If it has enough workers to satisfy current productivity needs, any extra money a business makes will either be paid to shareholders or as bounces to deserving employees. Some might be used to invest and expand the business, but that depends on the company.

Government can at least put money into projects that can directly create jobs. Where as businesses will only do so when it supports the business.

[alienlovechild 75]

Government can at least put money into projects that can directly create jobs. Where as businesses will only do so when it supports the business.

Only on the surface as taxpayers who pay for government jobs find they have less money to spend retarding private sector job growth money by individuals to invest in business that create jobs.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

So, what roads and bridges will private enterprise build and what jobs in the construction sector relative to this infrastructure investment will private enterprise create w/o public money paying for it? Right, not one.

[alienlovechild 75]

So, what roads and bridges will private enterprise build and what jobs in the construction sector relative to this infrastructure investment will private enterprise create w/o public money paying for it? Right, not one.

Never heard of tollroads or private/public partnerships before? That figures.

Again and again I told you most of the money isn't for transportation infrastructure. Go look it up yourself since it's not sinking in for you.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

So, what roads and bridges will private enterprise build and what jobs in the construction sector relative to this infrastructure investment will private enterprise create w/o public money paying for it? Right, not one.

Never heard of tollroads or private/public partnerships before? That figures.

Again and again I told you most of the money isn't for transportation infrastructure. Go look it up yourself since it's not sinking in for you.

I've said time and again that the bulk of the private industry jobs for infrastructure projects will not be realized until 2010/2011 as the states are still in the project and planning phase of these investments. I know of several projects around the Tampa Bay area for which the ground breaking will start mid / late next year. While that doesn't create jobs today as paving projects would, I think that the State of Florida is taking the right approach focusing on actual infrastructure improvements from which the Bay area will benefit for decades to come. All this short term activism has gotten us into this sad state we're in from an infrastructure point of view. We ought to take the long term view even if it's unpopular in the short run.

[alienlovechild 75]

I've said time and again that the bulk of the private industry jobs for infrastructure projects will not be realized until 2010/2011 as the states are still in the project and planning phase of these investments. I know of several projects around the Tampa Bay area for which the ground breaking will start mid / late next year. While that doesn't create jobs today as paving projects would, I think that the State of Florida is taking the right approach focusing on actual infrastructure improvements from which the Bay area will benefit for decades to come. All this short term activism has gotten us into this sad state we're in from an infrastructure point of view. We ought to take the long term view even if it's unpopular in the short run.

Look, I probably know more than you on this. I'm a transportation planner. The vast bulk of the stimulus IS NOT for transportation infrastructure.

"You may recall that the $787 billion economic stimulus bill that passed in February had nearly $30 billion allocated for transportation investments. That money was given out to states and Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) — largely free of any criteria or requirements for what projects it should be spent on."

http://t4america.org/blog/2009/06/29/how-h...stimulus-funds/

[mawilson 2,133]

I think the stimulus package has "created or saved" 10 million jobs. Wait, make that 20.

Or 50. Or any number.

It's like saying that you're going to "lose or not gain" 20 pounds.

Poof, done! Since I haven't been eating chocolate cake for breakfast, lunch and dinner,

I have already lost or not gained 100 pounds! If I stick to my diet, I will have lost or

not gained another 100 pounds in the next year or so.

See how ridiculous that sounds?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I've said time and again that the bulk of the private industry jobs for infrastructure projects will not be realized until 2010/2011 as the states are still in the project and planning phase of these investments. I know of several projects around the Tampa Bay area for which the ground breaking will start mid / late next year. While that doesn't create jobs today as paving projects would, I think that the State of Florida is taking the right approach focusing on actual infrastructure improvements from which the Bay area will benefit for decades to come. All this short term activism has gotten us into this sad state we're in from an infrastructure point of view. We ought to take the long term view even if it's unpopular in the short run.

Look, I probably know more than you on this. I'm a transportation planner. The vast bulk of the stimulus IS NOT for transportation infrastructure.

I don't think I made a claim to the contrary. That doesn't negate the fact, though, that there are hundreds of infrastructure and transit projects on the schedule in Florida alone due to the stimulus package. See for yourself: Florida Recovery