The Obamanation

Originally Posted by classicman

Here is an interesting piece on where OUR stimulus money is going.


However ...

Then again...

Link
I'd like more of this money to go toward building and expanding the factories here in the US. I'm sure that would also lead to more innovation and greater competition.

There has been NO stimulus funds committed to this project. From the WSJ story:

In a letter Thursday to Energy Secretary Steven Chu, Sen. Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.) urged the department not to use any federal stimulus money to support a $1.5 billion wind project in Texas....

Rep. Brad Sherman (D., Calif.) said in an interview that he intended to send a similar letter to the Obama administration....

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Great job at over sight Dems. Really great. Not.

Democrats, as well as Republicans have opposed providng stimulus funds.

This is a private-joint venture between US and Chinese companies.

[TheMercenary]

The project also would support 800 jobs in China at a new factory built by Shenyang Power.

Great job at over sight Dems. Really great. Not.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Great job at over sight Dems. Really great. Not.

For 7 years the pubes couldn't oversee the trillions being poured into Iraq and Afghanistan. Now you speak up? Fail.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

For 7 years the pubes couldn't oversee the trillions being poured into Iraq and Afghanistan. Now you speak up? Fail.

Nope, win. I wasn't here 7 years ago.

[dar512]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Nope, win. I wasn't here 7 years ago.

You're six?

[classicman]

Who said it was the D's fault? I think part of this was the concessions that the Chinese made. There is more to this.

[TheMercenary]

They are in charge of the taxpayers dollars in this "stimulus" economy. How about that great job with CIT Group? We lost 2.3 billion dollars of tax payers money in that deal.

[TheMercenary]

From The Economist.
KAL's cartoon
Oct 29th 2009

[TheMercenary]

Why won't Obama give you a job?
The White House thinks the stimulus is working, and it doesn't want you on its payroll

Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, November 8, 2009

To hear President Obama tell it, he's been busy creating jobs since taking office. The $787 billion stimulus package, he said last winter, would "save or create 3.5 million jobs." The White House is touting reports from recipients of stimulus funds asserting that they have created or saved 640,000 jobs so far.

Yet the national unemployment rate has now hit 10.2 percent, helping explain why Republicans won the governors' races in Virginia and New Jersey last week, just a year after the party's 2008 drubbing. And Obama declared Friday that more action is needed.

"History tells us that job growth always lags behind economic growth, which is why we have to continue to pursue measures that will create new jobs," he said. "And I can promise you that I won't let up until the Americans who want to find work can find work."

It was a strong vow, but it raises a question: Why has a White House that talks so much about boosting employment steered clear of the most direct strategy that could keep Americans on the job?

Since taking office, the Obama administration has studiously avoided paying people to go to work, which could be accomplished by subsidizing workers' private-sector employment or by creating new government-paid jobs. There are programs in a handful of states that financially compensate employees who cut their hours to prevent broader layoffs at their companies -- an approach that costs relatively little, since it results in lower payouts of unemployment benefits, and that has helped Germany keep unemployment under 8 percent despite the deep slowdown there. But the Obama administration has so far opted not to expand this initiative. And aside from a small summer employment program for young people, it has not sought to create jobs on the public payroll, something the country did in the 1930s and 1970s.

Instead Obama's team has taken a more indirect approach, a prudence that critics on the left say is misplaced. If you're spending hundreds of billions of dollars on stimulus, why not do it with conviction? Engaging in more forthright job creation could invite some political pitfalls (such as those constant accusations of socialism), but is double-digit unemployment any less a political risk?

The administration is "scared of [any plans] seeming like old-fashioned make-work, but that's what it is: You're giving [people] jobs because they have nothing left to do," said Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, a left-leaning think thank. "Giving people a shot at a job has to be worth a little bad publicity . . . but as in a lot of areas, they proved more cautious."

White House officials express confidence in the steps taken, saying the stimulus is spending money and creating jobs ahead of schedule, and forestalling far higher unemployment. They say they opted against direct jobs programs not for political reasons but because they thought such efforts would not produce long-term value. And they have not pushed the private-sector job-sharing idea -- being promoted by Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) -- because they want to build real demand for workers, not just spread work among more people.

"I think we got the Recovery Act right," Larry Summers, the president's chief economic adviser, said in an interview. "The primary objective of our policy is having more work done, more product produced and more people earning more income. It may be desirable to have a given amount of work shared among more people. But that's not as desirable as expanding the total amount of work."

Two-thirds of the stimulus went toward tax cuts, fiscal aid to states, and expanded unemployment benefits and food stamps. These efforts helped cushion the recession's blow, saved public jobs and, by injecting demand into the economy, bolstered employment indirectly. On Thursday, Congress buttressed these efforts with an extension of unemployment benefits and an expansion of the tax credit for homebuyers.

The remaining third of the stimulus, however, was expected to be the real jobs generator: $250 billion for infrastructure -- roads, transit, water treatment -- and for investments in energy efficiency, broadband access and other areas. But it is becoming clear that much of that spending is not producing many new jobs. Highway funds have put repaving crews to work, but $6.5 billion flowing to states and cities for energy projects has only just arrived and has created virtually no private-sector jobs yet.

The jobs impact is also paltry so far for the $3 billion in National Science Foundation grants and the $10 billion for the National Institutes of Health. And much of the $19 billion for health information technology will not be spent until 2011.

continues:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...110601900.html

[Urbane Guerrilla]

And another view.

. . .the Obama administration claimed 640,000 jobs were "saved or created" with $159 billion of the "stimulus," many "news" outlets blithely "reported" this. Do you know that comes to $250,000 per job?! And the administration claimed half the jobs were teachers. How many teachers make $250,000 per year?

There are folks out there who... aren't as good at journalism as Jayson Blair.

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

And another view.

There are folks out there who... aren't as good at journalism as Jayson Blair.

A simplistic view for ideological simpletons who dont understand or are unwilling to acknowledge the concept that work provides value well above and beyond just dividing dollars spent by jobs created.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by Redux

A simplistic view for ideological simpletons who dont understand or are unwilling to acknowledge the concept that work provides value well above and beyond just dividing dollars spent by jobs created.

One ends up just wondering why the 250K per capita shouldn't simply be transferred to each of those capita -- if, say, you wanted to buy some votes.

And Redux, how does it not leave you vulnerable to being charged a simpleton yourself when you leave out the apostrophe? Tw's appalling copyediting is already enough for one site without additions from you.

No, simplistic is expecting the public sector to increase the wealth or to be a jobs agency. That simply never happens -- government is part of the administrative overhead, not the wealth engine. Economists understand this, Democrats presently ignore it. Dumb.

P.S.: Anyone else think Mister Jobless in the pic looks an awful lot like a rear view of Michael Moore? UG

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

....
No, simplistic is expecting the public sector to increase the wealth or to be a jobs agency. That simply never happens -- government is part of the administrative overhead, not the wealth engine. Economists understand this, Democrats presently ignore it. Dumb....

Rewriting history again, UG?

It was Democratic programs from the New Deal and labor legislation of the 30s that ended the depression; the post-WWII programs that invested in education, built the nation's current infrastructure, underwrote the infant technology and bio-med industries, funded the aerospace industry; the civil rights legislation of the 60s that was instrumental in the creation of a Black middle class.....all of which not only created more personal wealth, but fueled the economic engine of which you speak.

Economists understood this.

Republicans and Libertarians are still in denial.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

Rewriting history again, UG?

It was Democratic programs .......the civil rights legislation of the 60s that was instrumental in the creation of a Black middle class.....all of which not only created more personal wealth, but fueled the economic engine of which you speak.

Rewriting history again, Redux?

A common attempt by Demoncrats to rewrite history while they ignore the facts of the Civil Rights Movement of the 60's:

(To long to post here)

http://gopcapitalist.tripod.com/democratrecord.html

snip

A little known fact of history involves the heavy opposition to the civil rights movement by several prominent Democrats. Similar historical neglect is given to the important role Republicans played in supporting the civil rights movement. A calculation of 26 major civil rights votes from 1933 through the 1960's civil rights era shows that Republicans favored civil rights in approximately 96% of the votes, whereas the Democrats opposed them in 80% of the votes! These facts are often intentionally overlooked by the left wing Democrats for obvious reasons. In some cases, the Democrats have told flat out lies about their shameful record during the civil rights movement.

Democrat Senators organized the record Senate filibuster of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Included among the organizers were several prominent and well known liberal Democrat standard bearers including:
- Robert Byrd, current senator from West Virginia
- J. William Fulbright, Arkansas senator and political mentor of Bill Clinton
- Albert Gore Sr., Tennessee senator, father and political mentor of Al Gore. Gore Jr. has been known to lie about his father's opposition to the Civil Rights Act.
- Sam Ervin, North Carolina senator of Watergate hearings fame
- Richard Russell, famed Georgia senator and later President Pro Tempore

The complete list of the 21 Democrats who opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 includes Senators:

- Hill and Sparkman of Alabama
- Fulbright and McClellan of Arkansas
- Holland and Smathers of Florida
- Russell and Talmadge of Georgia
- Ellender and Long of Louisiana
- Eastland and Stennis of Mississippi
- Ervin and Jordan of North Carolina
- Johnston and Thurmond of South Carolina
- Gore Sr. and Walters of Tennessee
- H. Byrd and Robertson of Virginia
- R. Byrd of West Virginia

Democrat opposition to the Civil Rights Act was substantial enough to literally split the party in two. A whopping 40% of the House Democrats VOTED AGAINST the Civil Rights Act, while 80% of Republicans SUPPORTED it. Republican support in the Senate was even higher. Similar trends occurred with the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which was supported by 82% of House Republicans and 94% of Senate Republicans. The same Democrat standard bearers took their normal racists stances, this time with Senator Fulbright leading the opposition effort.

[TheMercenary]

Yep.