• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Media Falls For "Phony Jobs" Claim

Mike

Well-known member
Can the Buckwheat fans not see the deceit? You're getting "Change" alright................. :lol: :lol:

Tony Fratto is envious.

Mr. Fratto was a colleague of mine in the Bush administration, and as a senior member of the White House communications shop, he knows just how difficult it can be to deal with a press corps skeptical about presidential economic claims. It now appears, however, that Mr. Fratto's problem was that he simply lacked the magic words -- jobs "saved or created."

"Saved or created" has become the signature phrase for Barack Obama as he describes what his stimulus is doing for American jobs. His latest invocation came yesterday, when the president declared that the stimulus had already saved or created at least 150,000 American jobs -- and announced he was ramping up some of the stimulus spending so he could "save or create" an additional 600,000 jobs this summer. These numbers come in the context of an earlier Obama promise that his recovery plan will "save or create three to four million jobs over the next two years."



Associated Press

The president should 'save or create' more jobs in Cleveland.
Mr. Fratto sees a double standard at play. "We would never have used a formula like 'save or create,'" he tells me. "To begin with, the number is pure fiction -- the administration has no way to measure how many jobs are actually being 'saved.' And if we had tried to use something this flimsy, the press would never have let us get away with it."

Of course, the inability to measure Mr. Obama's jobs formula is part of its attraction. Never mind that no one -- not the Labor Department, not the Treasury, not the Bureau of Labor Statistics -- actually measures "jobs saved." As the New York Times delicately reports, Mr. Obama's jobs claims are "based on macroeconomic estimates, not an actual counting of jobs." Nice work if you can get away with it.

And get away with it he has. However dubious it may be as an economic measure, as a political formula "save or create" allows the president to invoke numbers that convey an illusion of precision. Harvard economist and former Bush economic adviser Greg Mankiw calls it a "non-measurable metric." And on his blog, he acknowledges the political attraction.

"The expression 'create or save,' which has been used regularly by the President and his economic team, is an act of political genius," writes Mr. Mankiw. "You can measure how many jobs are created between two points in time. But there is no way to measure how many jobs are saved. Even if things get much, much worse, the President can say that there would have been 4 million fewer jobs without the stimulus."

Mr. Obama's comments yesterday are a perfect illustration of just such a claim. In the months since Congress approved the stimulus, our economy has lost nearly 1.6 million jobs and unemployment has hit 9.4%. Invoke the magic words, however, and -- presto! -- you have the president claiming he has "saved or created" 150,000 jobs. It all makes for a much nicer spin, and helps you forget this is the same team that only a few months ago promised us that passing the stimulus would prevent unemployment from rising over 8%.

It's not only former Bush staffers such as Messrs. Fratto and Mankiw who have noted the political convenience here. During a March hearing of the Senate Finance Committee, Chairman Max Baucus challenged Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner on the formula.

"You created a situation where you cannot be wrong," said the Montana Democrat. "If the economy loses two million jobs over the next few years, you can say yes, but it would've lost 5.5 million jobs. If we create a million jobs, you can say, well, it would have lost 2.5 million jobs. You've given yourself complete leverage where you cannot be wrong, because you can take any scenario and make yourself look correct."

Now, something's wrong when the president invokes a formula that makes it impossible for him to be wrong and it goes largely unchallenged. It's true that almost any government spending will create some jobs and save others. But as Milton Friedman once pointed out, that doesn't tell you much: The government, after all, can create jobs by hiring people to dig holes and fill them in.

If the "saved or created" formula looks brilliant, it's only because Mr. Obama and his team are not being called on their claims. And don't expect much to change. So long as the news continues to repeat the administration's line that the stimulus has already "saved or created" 150,000 jobs over a time period when the U.S. economy suffered an overall job loss 10 times that number, the White House would be insane to give up a formula that allows them to spin job losses into jobs saved.

"You would think that any self-respecting White House press corps would show some of the same skepticism toward President Obama's jobs claims that they did toward President Bush's tax cuts," says Mr. Fratto. "But I'm still waiting."
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
TexasBred said:
When Obama closes 800 Chrysler dealership, the employees of those that remain open are considered "JOBS SAVED".

So the alternative is letting them ALL go on the taxpayers rolls of unemployment, further foreclosures and devaluation of housing, medicaid/medicare, welfare, soupkitchens, etc. etc. :???:

Too bad GW never thought of this when his crew fell asleep and let the financial world greedily bankrupt the country :(
 

leanin' H

Well-known member
How about you go for 1 whole day without blaming Bush> Just try sticking up for your guy on his merits and not Mention the previous admin.! :wink: :D
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
leanin' H said:
How about you go for 1 whole day without blaming Bush> Just try sticking up for your guy on his merits and not Mention the previous admin.! :wink: :D

OK- So the alternative is letting ALL the rest of the folks connected to the Auto industry (7 for every 1 that works for GM or Chrysler) go on the taxpayers rolls of unemployment, further foreclosures and devaluation of housing, medicaid/medicare, welfare, soupkitchens, etc. etc. :???:
 

leanin' H

Well-known member
Thank you! If a company cannot remain solvent by itself, why should taxpayers prop it up? Across the board! No subsidies, no bailouts! I pay my mortgage and my bills! Why can't they? We are propping them up (auto, banking, wallstreet, ect.) and making the problem much worse with the debt we go into! You bought a fancy house and can't make the payment? Sorry! You loaned money because you were greedy? Better try another career! You get in bed with unions, make junk, lose your butt? Bye Bye GM!
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
leanin' H said:
Thank you! If a company cannot remain solvent by itself, why should taxpayers prop it up? Across the board! No subsidies, no bailouts! I pay my mortgage and my bills! Why can't they? We are propping them up (auto, banking, wallstreet, ect.) and making the problem much worse with the debt we go into! You bought a fancy house and can't make the payment? Sorry! You loaned money because you were greedy? Better try another career! You get in bed with unions, make junk, lose your butt? Bye Bye GM!

You don't remember all the farm/ranch, Farm Credit, FSA bailouts of the 80's and 90's.... :???:
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
TexasBred said:
When Obama closes 800 Chrysler dealership, the employees of those that remain open are considered "JOBS SAVED".

So the alternative is letting them ALL go on the taxpayers rolls of unemployment, further foreclosures and devaluation of housing, medicaid/medicare, welfare, soupkitchens, etc. etc. :???:

:(

That was never one of the alternatives.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandhusker said:
Oldtimer said:
TexasBred said:
When Obama closes 800 Chrysler dealership, the employees of those that remain open are considered "JOBS SAVED".

So the alternative is letting them ALL go on the taxpayers rolls of unemployment, further foreclosures and devaluation of housing, medicaid/medicare, welfare, soupkitchens, etc. etc. :???:

:(

That was never one of the alternatives.

What was then going to happen if they went bankrupt and closed the doors :???: Taking with them all the supporting corporations :???:

They tried to sell out- nobody wanted them- or to even take them over...

I'm sure if someone offered a better deal- the Bankruptcy courts would have taken it...
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Going bankrupt and closing the doors are not synonyms. They would of gone through the bankruptcy courts, and changes would of been made to make it a leaner, stronger company.
 

Richard Doolittle

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
Going bankrupt and closing the doors are not synonyms. They would of gone through the bankruptcy courts, and changes would of been made to make it a leaner, stronger company.

EXACTLY! A bankruptcy without Government intervention would have brought all the interested parties to the table for a reorganization plan. Concessions would have been made and secured parties interests would have been recognized.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Richard Doolittle said:
Sandhusker said:
Going bankrupt and closing the doors are not synonyms. They would of gone through the bankruptcy courts, and changes would of been made to make it a leaner, stronger company.

EXACTLY! A bankruptcy without Government intervention would have brought all the interested parties to the table for a reorganization plan. Concessions would have been made and secured parties interests would have been recognized.

Which would have left all cars on the car lots unsellable- or devalued so bad it would have bankrupt ALL dealers- along with all warranties of cars already purchased null and void- plus putting thousands and thousands of retired and ex employees now on auto company pension plans and insurance plans on welfare/medicare/medicaid-- plus requiring the government to take over the pension plans under PBGC- which would have bankrupt it and caused a taxpayer bailout to keep it going....

Who had offered to buy up what was left of GM and Chrysler :???: From what I read- they almost had to twist Fiats arm to get them involved in the minor amount they are....
 

Richard Doolittle

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Richard Doolittle said:
Sandhusker said:
Going bankrupt and closing the doors are not synonyms. They would of gone through the bankruptcy courts, and changes would of been made to make it a leaner, stronger company.

EXACTLY! A bankruptcy without Government intervention would have brought all the interested parties to the table for a reorganization plan. Concessions would have been made and secured parties interests would have been recognized.

Which would have left all cars on the car lots unsellable- or devalued so bad it would have bankrupt ALL dealers- along with all warranties of cars already purchased null and void- plus putting thousands and thousands of retired and ex employees now on auto company pension plans and insurance plans on welfare/medicare/medicaid-- plus requiring the government to take over the pension plans under PBGC- which would have bankrupt it and caused a taxpayer bailout to keep it going....

Who had offered to buy up what was left of GM and Chrysler :???: From what I read- they almost had to twist Fiats arm to get them involved in the minor amount they are....

Why? A man of all your experiences has obviously seen how bankruptcy reorganization can work.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
OT, "Which would have left all cars on the car lots unsellable..." No, it wouldn't of! Sales certainly would of slowed down until the reorginiation was announced, but then the worst would of been over and the blood shed.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
So the alternative is letting them ALL go on the taxpayers rolls of unemployment, further foreclosures and devaluation of housing, medicaid/medicare, welfare, soupkitchens, etc. etc.

Do they not pay into Unemployment? Do the insurance payments go into a general treasury fund or an unemployment account?
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
Going bankrupt and closing the doors are not synonyms. They would of gone through the bankruptcy courts, and changes would of been made to make it a leaner, stronger company.

I am starting to think OT is new to the English language. He really has no idea what things mean. He does not understand that bussinesses go through bankruptcy all the time and keep going and even thrive.

He buys into the liberal smoke screen that it is all or nothing. He drinks the kool aid that is leading to the Unions getting all the power.

He does not understand that if Chevy did fail 100% that Ford would have to hire many of them workers because sales would go through the roof!
 

Steve

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
leanin' H said:
How about you go for 1 whole day without blaming Bush> Just try sticking up for your guy on his merits and not Mention the previous admin.! :wink: :D

OK- So the alternative is letting ALL the rest of the folks connected to the Auto industry (7 for every 1 that works for GM or Chrysler) go on the taxpayers rolls of unemployment, further foreclosures and devaluation of housing, medicaid/medicare, welfare, soupkitchens, etc. etc. :???:

actually in many cases, Obama/Chrysler is closing down one dealership, while allowing another to open literally across the street..

he is favoring faltering mega dealers while closing solvent financially healthy mom and pop dealers... is that fair?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Steve said:
Oldtimer said:
leanin' H said:
How about you go for 1 whole day without blaming Bush> Just try sticking up for your guy on his merits and not Mention the previous admin.! :wink: :D

OK- So the alternative is letting ALL the rest of the folks connected to the Auto industry (7 for every 1 that works for GM or Chrysler) go on the taxpayers rolls of unemployment, further foreclosures and devaluation of housing, medicaid/medicare, welfare, soupkitchens, etc. etc. :???:

actually in many cases, Obama/Chrysler is closing down one dealership, while allowing another to open literally across the street..

he is favoring faltering mega dealers while closing solvent financially healthy mom and pop dealers... is that fair?

In the hearings the other day- both the CEO of GM and Chrysler testified they were opening no new dealerships...The main reason- was because in the downsizing they were going from 2 million cars a year- to 700 thousand- which would be allocated to the dealers with a good record of selling them and servicing them...Altho they said- they would- if production in the future increased- consider those being closed now first- in their expansion plans if they still wanted to be dealers....Some of the Chrysler dealerships may move into other dealerships- but that is mainly because Chrysler will totally be a brand new entity....
And financed thru GMAC...
They testified that 97% of the dealers have already signed onto the contract agreement to disperse the GM/Chrysler cars on the lot- mainly because as the GM CEO testified- these dealers have been losing money for the last year or two anyway and want the best way out...The alternative- with no one backing the servicing or the warranty- would mean they would lose even more because who would buy a "new" vehicle at the price the dealers had paid for them without a warranty- a service plan/contract- or any guarantee of parts being made in the future.....
 

Mike

Well-known member
Putting 50,000 auto workers in Michigan to work and putting 100,000 dealer employess out of work makes no sense to me at all.
 
Top