Welcome to Bizarro Amerika!
March 29, 2024, 11:45:06 am
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: OUR POLITIKAL SECTION IS A TROLL FREE AREA. ACT ACCORDINGLY.
 
  Home   Forum   Help Search Arcade Gallery Links Staff List Calendar Login Register  

where are the jobs?

Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: where are the jobs?  (Read 474 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
ekg
Administrator
Noob
*****

Karma: +335/-10
Offline Offline

Posts: 4094


http://www.thevsj.com


View Profile WWW
Badges: (View All)
Tenth year Anniversary Nineth year Anniversary Eighth year Anniversary
« on: February 15, 2011, 10:00:38 pm »

to win the House, Boehner's single line of thought on any issue.. war,healthcare,taxes,epa,fcc,world series.. was always the same.. "Where are the jobs"..."We need to create jobs".. he would say "we need this_____ to create jobs"... "We need to end that______ to create jobs"..

after the election, he claimed the American people had spoken and they said they want Boehner to give them jobs. He said it was a referendum on Obama's job-killing policies and the GOP was there to end the job-killing stuff..and create jobs! It was their 1st.. wait no that's making sure Obama doesn't re-elected, their 2nd, oops no, that was the richies tax cut... Ok the 3rd,hmmm no, that was repeal... 4th?.. ok it was easily their 5th most important thing they had to do..

that was then..

this though, is now..

Quote
WASHINGTON – House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) on Tuesday showed little concern for the federal job losses that could result from the GOP's proposed spending cuts.

"In the last two years, under President Obama, the federal government has added 200,000 new federal jobs. If some of those jobs are lost so be it. We're broke," Boehner told reporters, according to Talking Points Memo
.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/02/15/if-spending-cuts-kill-jobs-so-be-it-boehner/


They haven't created a single job yet, but so be it if they kill a hundred thousand..

amazing.
Report Spam   Logged

Facts are the center. We don’t pretend that certain facts are in dispute to give the appearance of fairness to people who don’t believe them.  Balance is irrelevant to me.  It doesn’t have anything to do with truth, logic or reality. ~Charlie Skinner (the Newsroom)

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter

Howey
Administrator
Noob
*****

Karma: +693/-2
Offline Offline

Posts: 9436



View Profile
Badges: (View All)
Tenth year Anniversary Nineth year Anniversary Eighth year Anniversary
« Reply #1 on: February 16, 2011, 10:01:09 am »

so be it

Yeah. Turns out Boner's 200k number is a lie. Go figure...

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/feb/15/john-boehner/john-boehner-says-200000-new-federal-jobs-have-spr/

Quote
We turned, as we always do, to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the official statistician for the United States labor force.

BLS calculates two categories that illuminate Boehner’s comment.

The first is the overall rise in federal employees between January 2009 and January 2011. The net increase was 58,000.

The second is the number of federal employees without counting U.S. Postal Service workers. Over that same two-year period, the increase was 140,800.

Both of those numbers are lower than the 200,000 figure Boehner cited.

We also checked with John M. Palguta, vice president for policy with the Partnership for Public Service, a non-profit that promotes government service, and he confirmed our general conclusion using numbers from a different database.

He dug into the U.S. Office of Personnel Management’s on-line federal workforce data source, "FedScope." He found that in fiscal years 2009 and 2010, respectively, the federal government filled a net 59,995 and 47,062 new permanent, full-time, non-seasonal, non-postal jobs. Combined, that means that federal employment rose by 107,057 jobs -- well short of 200,000.

We checked with Boehner’s office to see what his statement was based on. Aides said they had used figures from December 2008 to January 2011, which produced an increase of 153,000 federal, non-postal jobs. Then they factored in, on a discounted basis, the temporary jobs required to carry out the 2010 Census. According to the Census Bureau, such temporary employment peaked at 585,729 in early May 2010.

"We think 200,000 is probably generous to the White House," said Boehner spokesman Michael Steel.

In previous fact checks, we have rejected the idea of adding temporary Census workers to federal job totals. While the statements we rated previously aren’t structured in exactly the same way as Boehner’s, we think the general principle remains valid -- that when you’re counting the rise or fall in the number of federal workers over a long period of time, it’s cherry picking to count the creation of temporary jobs but not their elimination.

All told, we find that Boehner’s 200,000 number is way off. We rate it False.

But how many job will be lost if Boner get's his way?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/15/AR2011021506021.html

Quote
"So be it."

That was House Speaker John Boehner's cold answer when asked Tuesday about job losses that would come from his new Republican majority's plans to cut tens of billions of dollars in government spending this year.

"Do you have any sort of estimate on how many jobs will be lost through this?" Pacifica Radio's Leigh Ann Caldwell inquired at a news conference just before the House began its debate on the cuts.

Boehner stood firm in his polished tassel loafers. "Since President Obama has taken office the federal government has added 200,000 new federal jobs, and if some of those jobs are lost in this, so be it," he said.

"Do you have any estimate of how many will?" Caldwell pressed. "And won't that negatively impact the economy?"

"I do not," Boehner replied, moving to the next questioner.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I do. I checked with budget expert Scott Lilly of the Center for American Progress, and, using the usual multipliers, he calculated that the cuts - a net of $59 billion in the last half of fiscal 2011 - would lead to the loss of 650,000 government jobs, and the indirect loss of 325,000 more jobs as fewer government workers travel and buy things. That's nearly 1 million jobs - possibly enough to tip the economy back into recession...

But in the short run, the cuts Boehner and his caucus propose would cause a shock to the economy that would slow, if not reverse, the recovery. And however pure Boehner's motives may be, the dirty truth is that a stall in the recovery would bring political benefits to the Republicans in the 2012 elections. It is in their political interests for unemployment to remain higher for the next two years. "So be it" is callous but rational.

Boehner could dismiss the forecasts of job losses as the work of liberal administration critics. But Boehner himself is well aware that the cuts will lead to more unemployment; that's why he's fighting hard to shield his Ohio constituents.


(Emphasis mine) "shield his Ohio constituents"? An earmark by any other name...

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Blogs/Capital-Exchange/2011/02/14/Capital-Exchange-Ohio-Could-Benefit-from-Earmark-Amid-Deep-Spending-Cuts.aspx

Quote
I was taken aback on Saturday when I learned that a package of deep cuts by House Republicans in hundreds of critically important federal programs included a $450 million increase for a Defense Department project that is opposed by the Pentagon. As a column I published yesterday demonstrates, the project would have an extraordinarily large impact on the economy of two neighboring cities in Ohio; Cincinnati and Dayton.  It so happens the new Republican Speaker of the House, Rep. John Boehner was born and grew up in Cincinnati and now represents a Western Ohio Congressional District in which Dayton is the largest City. 

The project involves the Pentagon’s procurement of jet engines for various versions of the new F-35 fighter.  The problem that General Electric Aviation, the company that wants to sell the engine, and the political and business leaders in Ohio who want the jobs created by the engine sales face, is that they don’t have an engine.  As a result they want the federal government to pay them to develop an engine. Meanwhile buried in the details of the explanatory sheets accompanying this legislation is a $225 million earmark in the Navy budget and another $225 million earmark in the Air Force budget that would make those two services write the checks. 

One reason the Pentagon is upset by this is that they already have a perfectly good engine and they believe the cost of helping GE and its partner, British owned Rolls Royce Group, come up with an alternative would eventually be more than $2 billion—money they argue they would never get back as the result of having two producers rather than one. 

How does this square with the speaker’s repeated proclamations that we must cut spending and we must eliminate earmarks?  The $450 billion this provision would send to facilities in Dayton and elsewhere would do a lot to the harshness of the cuts proposed in other parts of this same legislation—cuts like the support of local law enforcement or reductions in food safety inspections that affect every single community in America. 

But more troubling still is the apparent duplicity on earmarks.  I will concede that no one has a precise definition of the term.  So, the old adage, “if it walks like a duck,” applies.  In my mind an earmark is a decision to spend money for a particular purpose when the motivation is based more on local parochial concerns than on the needs of the country as a whole.  Looks like a duck to me. 

.

Report Spam   Logged

ekg
Administrator
Noob
*****

Karma: +335/-10
Offline Offline

Posts: 4094


http://www.thevsj.com


View Profile WWW
Badges: (View All)
Tenth year Anniversary Nineth year Anniversary Eighth year Anniversary
« Reply #2 on: February 16, 2011, 11:04:39 am »

why did people expect anything different from the same people that put this country in the fix it's in? It amazes me the forgiveness we show.. or maybe it's amnesia or stupidity..

It's all about them.. never about us.

however pure Boehner's motives may be, the dirty truth is that a stall in the recovery would bring political benefits to the Republicans in the 2012 elections. It is in their political interests for unemployment to remain higher for the next two years. "So be it" is callous but rational

ummm duh!

the best part is he'll kill off the rest of the country to get the national leverage his party wants.. but to keep his personal leverage he'll spend billions on something no one wants but him..

Among the savings proposed by the Obama administration (and before that, the Bush administration) is to end the wasteful effort to develop a second engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. The Pentagon is satisfied with the engine it has[/b], made by Pratt & Whitney, and it doesn't want the second engine, made by General Electric and others. Eliminating the second engine would save $450 million this year and some $3 billion over 10 years.[/b]


But it just so happens that a GE plant that develops the second engine employs 7,000 people in Evendale, Ohio, near Boehner's district. Rather than take a so-be-it attitude toward jobs his constituents may hold, he's backing an earmark-like provision in the spending legislation to keep funding the unneeded GE engine.

"I believe that over the next 10 years this will save the government money," Boehner reasoned at his news conference.


he can 'believe' what he wants if it's his money he's spending.. but for someone wanting to cut spending AND stop the gov't from forcing people to do or pay for something they don't want.. he has a funny way of showing that by unnecessarily wasting billions and forcing the DoD to  take something it doesn't need or want.
Report Spam   Logged

Facts are the center. We don’t pretend that certain facts are in dispute to give the appearance of fairness to people who don’t believe them.  Balance is irrelevant to me.  It doesn’t have anything to do with truth, logic or reality. ~Charlie Skinner (the Newsroom)
Howey
Administrator
Noob
*****

Karma: +693/-2
Offline Offline

Posts: 9436



View Profile
Badges: (View All)
Tenth year Anniversary Nineth year Anniversary Eighth year Anniversary
« Reply #3 on: February 16, 2011, 01:22:11 pm »

however pure Boehner's motives may be, the dirty truth is that a stall in the recovery would bring political benefits to the Republicans in the 2012 elections. It is in their political interests for unemployment to remain higher for the next two years. "So be it" is callous but rational

What's sad is they've even stated that's their goal. Before lying to the masses of stupid that fell for the "vote for us and we'll get the jobs for you" crap.
Report Spam   Logged


Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by EzPortal
Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
SMF For Free - Create your own Forum


Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy