Obama’s Economists: ‘Stimulus’ Has Cost $278,000 per Job; Is Hurting Growth.
- Thread starter tainted
- Start date
This doesn't make sense. We know the free market is incapable of creating jobs and a planned society is the only thing that can work in the long run. People are much better at planning what is needed than the market is. They're also better at pricing things. I think they should spend even more money on creating jobs because spending to create a job sounds better than having more money and no job. I'm happy that we have those jobs, even if it costs us more than the job produces. At least those people are no longer unemployed! America is on the road to recovery and on the road to logic!
What an incredibly un-biased news outfit you've found there, tainted!
I couldn't tell which spoke of its' professionalism most:
1. I've never heard of it, nor any of its' writers.
2. CNN isn't reporting on any such similar story, which should be big news if true.
3. The writing was pathetic and high-schoolish. (ex: "Let us say it again")
4. The stories were all conservative-slanted.
5. Best yet, the 1 popup and 2 pop-unders it attempted to open in my browser didn't even have a "skip this ad" link... They were in fact flashing that I'd won something...
Jesus man, stop getting your news from the toilet of the internet! Even Alex Jones has more credibility than this fake rag...
I couldn't tell which spoke of its' professionalism most:
1. I've never heard of it, nor any of its' writers.
2. CNN isn't reporting on any such similar story, which should be big news if true.
3. The writing was pathetic and high-schoolish. (ex: "Let us say it again")
4. The stories were all conservative-slanted.
5. Best yet, the 1 popup and 2 pop-unders it attempted to open in my browser didn't even have a "skip this ad" link... They were in fact flashing that I'd won something...
Jesus man, stop getting your news from the toilet of the internet! Even Alex Jones has more credibility than this fake rag...
@lukep: The story has been covered in more mainstream outlets, and even warranted an official response from the White House, covered by ABC here. You don't typically see any sitting administration running to respond to charges from sources that they feel lack credibility.
If you don't get too offended being near conservative media, you can read a fairly detailed response from the original author to the White House's rebuttal here at NPR.
(please note that I don't know or care anything about this issue; just pointing out the coverage.)
Frank
If you don't get too offended being near conservative media, you can read a fairly detailed response from the original author to the White House's rebuttal here at NPR.
(please note that I don't know or care anything about this issue; just pointing out the coverage.)
Frank
Ad hominem FTL. All 5 points have nothing to do with the argument presented in the article.
$666 billion / 2.4 million jobs created = $277.5k per job. Now according to the government doc: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/cea_7th_arra_report.pdf they say between 2.4 million to 3.6 million jobs. So even using the best case scenario it's still a miserable failure: $666 billion / 3.6 = $185k. Now this Act is effective as of February 17, 2009 so that comes to it being about 2.5 years old, rounding up. That comes to 185k / 2.5 = 74k per year for each job. And these are for unemployed people that were obviously working prob 30k or less jobs. Doesn't seem like an investment I would want to put my money in. But most people are bad investors.
Anybody who knows anything about economics and logic will know that you can't spend money to create jobs. You can't force nature. You can only allow the freedom for nature to take its place. That is how a free market (real/successful economics) works.
Sounds like another government disaster to me. But then again, I was raised on real American principles so I may be a bit biased.
Must be pure shit then.
If CNN doesn't cover it, must be pure shit.
Must be pure shit then.
That's because it's pointing out the idiocy of Obama's liberal economic policies.
Must be pure shit then.
...aaaand you didn't actually discuss the content of the article, at all.
Thanks, Frank, I'll go read the versions you linked to.
All five of my points were to show you that the source was not worthy of anyone's' time... HENCE I DIDN'T READ PAST THE HEADLINE THERE.
This is called verifying your sources. If your source is crap, don't let it into your head at all. Most smart people do this. -And Not doing this leads them to not be smart anymore.
Since a quick scan of the site showed me that the content is likely to be crap, I backed out and went looking for related content elsewhere. CNN didn't even have it so all of the alarm bells were complete, this story doesn't look very sound.
-But I haven't yet read Frank's article yet, nor compared the whitehouse PDF report. I have never said one way or the other any opinion on the matter of the findings because until give these links by Frank and slayerment, I (and no one else reading this thread) had any source of it worth reading.
+rep. my thoughts also. Not that I read the article. I am looking at the argument presented only.
This is actually a pretty well known publication, but they are also known to be extremely slanted right. Never heard of the author though.
Alright, I've read the ABC and NPR takes on it now.
Sounds like Obama dun fucked up.
That is all.
Sounds like Obama dun fucked up.
That is all.
that's rediculous. reading only sources and content that you like and agree with is a fast path to ignorance.
Now I'm not too certain this is what the stimulus program is about, but jobs can never be "created" or "invested into" by using tax money to employ people to the state. Read into "broken window fallacy".
Where the FUCK did I say anything about liking or agreeing with them you troll?
That post was 100% about establishing credibility. Their paper looks like it was written by a teenager, slanted entirely towards one side of the political spectrum, and had pop-ups and flashing "You Won" pop-unders. These do not bring any kind of confidence of their credibility to me.
But as we just saw, even a stopped clock is right twice every day.
I'm sorry, I guess I was assuming a bit too much. I'll just take it on faith then that you don't 'let in to your head at all' any of the content that comes from otherwise credible sources, which happen to slant towards your own subjective opinions on life, but which unfortunately use pop ads and carry poor articles in some proportion. Because they're certainly not worth paying attention to either, let alone honestly considering for what little bits of truth may be gleaned from them.
In fact now that I think this through, I can't think of a single time when I've read something that I subjectively thought came from a bad source but which I nonetheless recognized had some value to it, whether for the experience of building a personal palette for credibility, or seeing what others consider to be true and credible in order to better understand them demographically, or simply as an exercise in literature.