FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Obama stimulus: +millions of American jobs





handfleisch
Here's a summary of the status of the Obama stimulus plan. It did what it was supposed to do, but the Great Recession was so bad that it wasn't enough. Remember that next time right winger like Rick Perry or some other serial liar starts spouting his nonsense

http://money.cnn.com/2011/09/08/news/economy/stimulus_jobs_record/index.htm
Quote:

The administration's initial stimulus plan, the $787 billion package passed in February 2009, was designed to save or create about 4 million jobs.

According to some third-party estimates, the White House may have come close to hitting that target, especially if you factor in the administration's bailout of the auto industry.

But the job losses in late 2008 and early 2009 ended up being much worse than expected. A total of 3.8 million jobs were lost from December 2008 through April 2009, an average of just over 750,000 a month.

By the time the job losses stopped a year after Obama took office, the Great Recession had cost the economy 8.8 million jobs, and the unemployment rate was stuck in the 9% to 10% range.


http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/sep/12/rick-perry/rick-perry-says-2009-stimulus-created-zero-jobs/
Quote:
As our colleagues at PolitiFact Virginia have pointed out, in a report released March 18, 2011, the president’s Council of Economic Advisers estimated that between 2.5 million and 3.6 million jobs were created or saved by the stimulus through the fourth quarter of 2010.

Separately, the council’s report cited four independent analyses by the Congressional Budget Office and three private economic analysis companies. Here’s what the groups found:

• CBO: Between 1.3 million and 3.6 million jobs saved or created.

• IHS/Global Insight: 2.45 million jobs saved or created.

• Macroeconomic Advisers: 2.3 million jobs saved or created.

• Moody’s Economy.com: 2.5 million jobs saved or created.
jmi256
handfleisch wrote:
Here's a summary of the status of the Obama stimulus plan. It did what it was supposed to do...





Really? Did it stop the unemployment rate from going above 8% as Obama claimed as he and the Democrats tried to justify the "stimulus" bill that Obama and the Democrats then funneled into campaign contributors pockets?

handfleisch
jmi256 wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
Here's a summary of the status of the Obama stimulus plan. It did what it was supposed to do...


Really? Did it stop the unemployment rate from going above 8% as Obama claimed as he and the Democrats tried to justify the "stimulus" bill that Obama and the Democrats then funneled into campaign contributors pockets?


It created and saved the jobs it was supposed to create and save, MILLIONS of jobs. You tried to pretend it did nothing, another instance of your error-filled nonsense posts.

Anyone can read the article and understand the situation, that the Great Recession was so bad that the stimulus was too small, that the millions of jobs created and saved were not enough to lower the unemployment rate, which would be much higher if not for Obama's policies. Anyone can see that the global economy continues to be bad, that the European debt crisis is currently reaching a critical point, that the US economy was collapsing before Obama came onto the scene. Anyone but you, apparently.

Oh, please give us your Pajamas Media or RightWingNews link to the imaginary "campaign contributors" scandal that exists only underneath tinfoil hats.
jmi256
handfleisch wrote:
the stimulus was too small

Too small? It was larger than what Obama and the Democrats said they needed when they made a case for the “stimulus”, yet has still managed to fail.


handfleisch wrote:
that the millions of jobs created and saved were not enough to lower the unemployment rate, which would be much higher if not for Obama's policies.

Not according to Obama and the Democrats. According to them, with their “stimulus” the unemployment rate should be around 6.5% right now. You can make whatever excuses you want, but Obama and the Democrats made their case and failed. And the worst part is that Obama and the Democrats used that money to line the pockets of campaign contributors, and American taxpayers will have to pay for their corruption and greed.
handfleisch
jmi256 wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
that the millions of jobs created and saved were not enough to lower the unemployment rate, which would be much higher if not for Obama's policies.

Not according to Obama and the Democrats. According to them, with their “stimulus” the unemployment rate should be around 6.5% right now. You can make whatever excuses you want, but Obama and the Democrats made their case and failed. And the worst part is that Obama and the Democrats used that money to line the pockets of campaign contributors, and American taxpayers will have to pay for their corruption and greed.


Your post makes no sense. Here, let me make it easy for you:

Stimulus = +millions of jobs.
No stimulus = loss of millions of jobs, higher unemployment.
You are against the Stimulus, so you would be okay with the unemployment rate even higher. Just like how the Republicans are blocking job bills now, you like higher unemployment so you can blame Obama while ignoring the world economic situation and continuing your amnesia about the Great Recession.

Oh, you forgot to provide a link to your fake scandal about "the pockets of campaign contributors". Is it maybe at tinfoilhatnews.com?
jmi256
handfleisch wrote:
Your post makes no sense. Here, let me make it easy for you:

Stimulus = +millions of jobs.

Why is the unemployment higher than when Obama came into office? Why have millions of people lost their jobs thanks to his and the Democrats? Why did the unemployment rate go higher with the “stimulus” than what Obama and the Democrats said it would ever be without it?



handfleisch wrote:
You are against the Stimulus

I am against Obama and the Democrats greed and corruption in which they used taxpayer money under the guise of a “stimulus” to hand over to campaign contributors. They then try to claim any jobs that the private sector creates in spite of Obama and the Democrats anti-economic-growth policies. Even Obama has given up on the silly “save or created” meme and the idea that the government creates jobs because it was obvious he was a laughing stock.

handfleisch wrote:
Just like how the Republicans are blocking job bills now

You do realize it was the Democrats in the Senate who stopped Obama’s second “stimulus”, which he was trying to call a “jobs bill”, right? Even they knew it was a loser and who hang around their necks like an albatross. He can’t even lead his own party.
handfleisch
jmi256 wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
Your post makes no sense. Here, let me make it easy for you:

Stimulus = +millions of jobs.

Why is the unemployment higher than when Obama came into office? Why have millions of people lost their jobs thanks to his and the Democrats? Why did the unemployment rate go higher with the “stimulus” than what Obama and the Democrats said it would ever be without it?



handfleisch wrote:
You are against the Stimulus

I am against Obama and the Democrats greed and corruption in which they used taxpayer money under the guise of a “stimulus” to hand over to campaign contributors. They then try to claim any jobs that the private sector creates in spite of Obama and the Democrats anti-economic-growth policies. Even Obama has given up on the silly “save or created” meme and the idea that the government creates jobs because it was obvious he was a laughing stock.

handfleisch wrote:
Just like how the Republicans are blocking job bills now

You do realize it was the Democrats in the Senate who stopped Obama’s second “stimulus”, which he was trying to call a “jobs bill”, right? Even they knew it was a loser and who hang around their necks like an albatross. He can’t even lead his own party.


Again, your post makes little sense. You do realize that a rant is not an argument, don't you? You do realize you haven't linked to any proof of your imaginary scandal about "greed and corruption" in connection with the Stimulus, don't you?

The numbers are simple: Without the Stimulus, the US economy would have millions less jobs. The unemployment rate would be that much worse. So you are in favor of allowing the unemployment to be worse. Congratulations. With Republican policies, millions more would be thrown out of work.

About your other fantasies, read it and weep:
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/nov/03/news/la-pn-senate-jobs-vote-20111103
Quote:
Senate Republicans block another piece of Obama jobs bill

Republican-led opposition in the Senate blocked the highway infrastructure flank of President Obama's jobs package from advancing Thursday, as the GOP continues its united front against Democratic efforts to raise taxes on millionaires to pay for programs to create jobs.

http://articles.boston.com/2011-11-04/business/30360444_1_jobs-package-jobs-plan-infrastructure-plan
Quote:
Senate GOP blocks Obama infrastructure plan
Republicans in the Senate Thursday dealt President Barack Obama the third in a string of defeats on his stimulus-style jobs agenda, blocking a $60 billion measure for building and repairing infrastructure like roads and rail lines.

jmi256
handfleisch wrote:
Again, your post makes little sense. You do realize that a rant is not an argument, don't you? You do realize you haven't linked to any proof of your imaginary scandal about "greed and corruption" in connection with the Stimulus, don't you?

For someone like you living in an alter universe where unemployment over 9% is lower than 6.5%, little would make sense.

As far as Obama and the Democrats’ greed and corruption, here is just one example where they used taxpayer money, under the guise of “stimulus” to pay back a campaign contributor. Taxpayers lost over half a billion dollars.
Quote:
Obama admin reworked Solyndra loan to favor donor
....
Since then, the company’s implosion and revelations that the administration hurried Office of Management and Budget officials to finish their review of the loan in time for the September 2009 groundbreaking has become an embarrassment for Obama as he sells his new job-creation program around the country.

An Associated Press review of regulatory filings shows that Solyndra was hemorrhaging hundreds of millions of dollars for years before the Energy Department signed off on the original $535 million loan guarantee in September 2009. The company eventually got $528 million.

Republicans also question a decision in February to restructure the loan in such a way that private investors, including an Obama fundraiser, moved ahead of taxpayers for repayment in case of a default.

Under terms of the February loan restructuring, two private investors — Argonaut Ventures I LLC and Madrone Partners LP — stand to be repaid before the U.S. government if the solar company is liquidated. The two firms gave the company a total of $69 million in emergency loans. Argonaut is an investment vehicle of the George Kaiser Family Foundation — headed by billionaire George Kaiser, a major Obama campaign contributor and a frequent visitor to the White House. Kaiser raised between $50,000 and $100,000 for Obama’s 2008 campaign, federal election records show.

Source = http://www.suntimes.com/news/nation/7754758-418/obama-admin-reworked-solyndra-loan-to-favor-donor.html





handfleisch wrote:
Read it and weep:

What makes me weep is that there are people like you out there who like to spout off about the political system, yet do not understand the simple fact that the Senate is controlled by the Democrats. Obama couldn’t even get his party to go for his second “stimulus” bill. If they had all voted for it, the bill would have passed. But even the Democrats in the Senate knew that it would just shine more light on their party’s corruption. Luckily the Republicans stood firm against a second “stimulus” that, based on the results of Obama’s first stimulus, would go into the pockets of donors at the expense of taxpayers, while the unemployment rate went up. The real way to increase jobs is to let the private sector do it, which Obama has finally admitted when caught red-handed. Stop increasing job-killing taxes on businesses and entrepreneurs, and let them start, expand and grow so they can hire, not tax them into oblivion so that Obama and the Democrats can use that taxpayer money to pay off donors.
handfleisch
jmi256 wrote:

As far as Obama and the Democrats’ greed and corruption, here is just one example where they used taxpayer money, under the guise of “stimulus” to pay back a campaign contributor. Taxpayers lost over half a billion dollars.
Quote:
Obama admin reworked Solyndra loan to favor donor

Source = http://www.suntimes.com/news/nation/7754758-418/obama-admin-reworked-solyndra-loan-to-favor-donor.html

What makes me weep is that there are people like you out there who like to spout off about the political system, yet do not understand the simple fact that the Senate is controlled by the Democrats. Obama couldn’t even get his party to go for his second “stimulus” bill. If they had all voted for it, the bill would have passed. But even the Democrats in the Senate knew that it would just shine more light on their party’s corruption. Luckily the Republicans stood firm against a second “stimulus” that, based on the results of Obama’s first stimulus, would go into the pockets of donors at the expense of taxpayers, while the unemployment rate went up. The real way to increase jobs is to let the private sector do it, which Obama has finally admitted when caught red-handed. Stop increasing job-killing taxes on businesses and entrepreneurs, and let them start, expand and grow so they can hire, not tax them into oblivion so that Obama and the Democrats can use that taxpayer money to pay off donors.


I know rightwingers would love to get rid of the innocent-til-proven-guilty thing, but I have some bad news for you. One investigation of a case possible influence, barely begun, does not equal your scandal of "greed and corruption", no matter what Michele Bachmann says. That's why your fake "scandal" is only being talked about in your "Pajamas Media" type fake news websites.

And about the Republican repeated blocking of jobs bills, a matter of public record... Do you understand that a slight Democratic majority does not mean imperial powers? Do you understand that the Republicans can still block things from even coming up to a vote by unanimously opposing them? Or do you know some secret truth behind the Republicans blocking the jobs bills, that somehow the Democrats did it, that all the maneuvers that Republicans have done to block a vote somehow did not happen. Honestly, I don't know whether you're cracked or brainwashed or both. I think brainwashed, with your constant repetition of mantras like "Stop increasing job-killing taxes on businesses and entrepreneurs" and other failed right wing claptrap.

Still, it's good you're on record opposing the millions of jobs created by the Stimulus.
jmi256
handfleisch wrote:
I know rightwingers would love to get rid of the innocent-til-proven-guilty thing, but I have some bad news for you.

It’s ironic that you would say that given that you have condemned Herman Cain based on mostly anonymous accusations and a media lynching. You asked for proof, I gave it to you. It is not the only instance of Obama and the Democrats handing over taxpayer money to their campaign contributors as payback for their donations (and mostly likely with the expectation that they continue to contribute).



handfleisch wrote:
And about the Republican repeated blocking of jobs bills, a matter of public record... Do you understand that a slight Democratic majority does not mean imperial powers?

The Democrats used that majority to force Obamacare down our throats, even though most Americans knew it stunk to high Heaven of political payback to Obama’s donors in the healthcare insurance industry. The fact remains, Obama couldn’t even get his own party to vote for his second “stimulus” bill, which would most likely also gone to pay off his campaign contributors. I guess they wanted to spread the grift to their own campaign contributors as well. The Republicans then tried to pass parts of the second stimulus that weren’t ladened with pork, and the Democrats killed that too.
handfleisch
jmi256 wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
I know rightwingers would love to get rid of the innocent-til-proven-guilty thing, but I have some bad news for you.

It’s ironic that you would say that given that you have condemned Herman Cain based on mostly anonymous accusations and a media lynching. You asked for proof, I gave it to you. It is not the only instance of Obama and the Democrats handing over taxpayer money to their campaign contributors as payback for their donations (and mostly likely with the expectation that they continue to contribute).
Oh, I have carefully used "allegations" when discussing Cain and the number of women who are charging him with sexual harassment. You, on the other hand, use the most hilarious descriptions of outrage and finality over non-existent scandals like this "corruption" and your hilarious manic threads on OWS. There simply is no corruption scandal in this case; there are a couple things being investigated and that's it. If anything real comes to light from any of the investigations, and if there are many of them, then it might be a scandal, it might amount to "corruption". Turn to the dictionary if you don't understand.

jmi256 wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
And about the Republican repeated blocking of jobs bills, a matter of public record... Do you understand that a slight Democratic majority does not mean imperial powers?

The Democrats used that majority to force Obamacare down our throats, even though most Americans knew it stunk to high Heaven of political payback to Obama’s donors in the healthcare insurance industry. The fact remains, Obama couldn’t even get his own party to vote for his second “stimulus” bill, which would most likely also gone to pay off his campaign contributors. I guess they wanted to spread the grift to their own campaign contributors as well. The Republicans then tried to pass parts of the second stimulus that weren’t ladened with pork, and the Democrats killed that too.


Very entertaining. So you are so angry about the Democrat's success with the Affordable Health Care Act of 2009-2010 that this somehow proves they blocked their own jobs bill last September, here in 2011? By any chance did you forget about the midterm elections of November 2010, which lowered the Democrat's majority? Do you have any recall of how hard it was for the Dems to pass some kind of health care act even with their big majority, showing how easy it is now for Republicans to block jobs bills? Do you not understand how ridiculous you look when you try to say the Republicans haven't blocked Obama's jobs bills, when that's a matter of public record? It makes you look like a real tinfoil hat wearer, or at least someone who needs glasses:
Quote:

In votes last month, Republicans blocked the entire $447 billion jobs package and a subsequent attempt by Democrats to pass a $35 billion piece of it aimed at preventing layoffs of teachers and firefighters.

http://articles.boston.com/2011-11-04/business/30360444_1_jobs-package-jobs-plan-infrastructure-plan
Hello_World
I'm curious on what exactly did Obama spend the stimulus on?

Here, the stimulus was about jobs, yes, and about maintaining retail spending etc because 1) people felt secure in their jobs and 2) people had a little extra money.

Here, also, the situation is different, and we largely rode through the recession on the backs of the Chinese economy.

However, if consumer spending stopped we may not have rode on through.

We didn't have the mortgage crisis you guys are having.

We spent our money on 1)building a new building in every school 2)putting insulation in roofs(this wasn't done terribly well and cost a lot of extra money and even lives however in the crisis time it helped us get through) and 3) the government gave everyone $1000-


jmi256 claims Obama gave it to his 'cronies' well if not then how was it spent?
handfleisch
Hello_World wrote:
I'm curious on what exactly did Obama spend the stimulus on?
Here, the stimulus was about jobs, yes, and about maintaining retail spending etc because 1) people felt secure in their jobs and 2) people had a little extra money.
Here, also, the situation is different, and we largely rode through the recession on the backs of the Chinese economy.
However, if consumer spending stopped we may not have rode on through.
We didn't have the mortgage crisis you guys are having.
We spent our money on 1)building a new building in every school 2)putting insulation in roofs(this wasn't done terribly well and cost a lot of extra money and even lives however in the crisis time it helped us get through) and 3) the government gave everyone $1000-
jmi256 claims Obama gave it to his 'cronies' well if not then how was it spent?

is your google broken?
Hello_World
Why bother posting on this forum - I could just Google everything! Wow what a break-through.

Thanks gosh I never knew there was such a handy tool.
deanhills
Hello_World wrote:
Why bother posting on this forum - I could just Google everything! Wow what a break-through.

Thanks gosh I never knew there was such a handy tool.
Agreed. Trying to Google this is like sifting through a haystack of articles - all 15 million of them and not in a quality order either.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=what+exactly+did+Obama+spend+the+stimulus+on%3F+

I'm sure there is a direct correlation between the higher the debt of the country, the more complicated the package so that politicians can make it more marketable to the voters. I remember at the time when the first stimulus package was discussed that people were completely confused about how all of it was supposed to work. Everyone needed a whole bevy of tax consultants, lawyers, investment advisers, etc. to make head and tail of it. I'm certain even the Government must have needed specialists to figure out how to implement the Bill. I wonder whether those costs have been calculated when Obama did his math on how successful the first stimulus package had been. The math in its own must have been an expensive exercise in its own right, i.e. how can we make it look better?

For me the fact that a second stimulus package is needed in 2011 shows the Obama stimulus could not have been successful. If the original stimulus had been that much of a success there wouldn't have been the need for a second one. Worse, if the Government keeps on intervening on the massive and chaotic scale it has been doing since 2008, people are going to lose faith in the credit system of the US. Result of that is that people will no longer be investing in the US, and money will only be flowing out, not into the country. Including money of the US wealthy that will be exported elsewhere if they are forced to pay higher taxes. What happened to California when large corporations simply moved their HQ to other States could happen to the US. Your big corporations will be setting up their businesses in other countries.
handfleisch
Hello_World wrote:
Why bother posting on this forum - I could just Google everything! Wow what a break-through.

Thanks gosh I never knew there was such a handy tool.

OK try this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Recovery_and_Reinvestment_Act_of_2009
to summarize: massive investments in USA's collapsing infrastructure, big tax incentives for employers, investments in education to prevent cutbacks, investment in renewable energy projects, tons of tax credits...

Quote:
This Statement of Purpose included the following:

To preserve and create jobs and promote economic recovery.
To assist those most impacted by the recession.
To provide investments needed to increase economic efficiency by spurring technological advances in science and health.
To invest in transportation, environmental protection, and other infrastructure that will provide long-term economic benefits.
To stabilize State and local government budgets, in order to minimize and avoid reductions in essential services and counterproductive state and local tax increases.

The Act specifies that 37% of the package is to be devoted to tax incentives equaling $288 billion and $144 billion or 18% is allocated to state and local fiscal relief (more than 90% of the state aid is going to Medicaid and education). The remaining 45% or $357 billion is allocated to federal spending programs such as transportation, communication, waste water and sewer infrastructure improvements; energy efficiency upgrades in private and federal buildings; extension of federal unemployment benefits; and scientific research programs.

or via balloon graph:
deanhills
You may also find this article interesting:
Fiscal Stimulus, Fiscal Inflation, or Fiscal Fallacies?

by Prof. John Cochrane of University of Chicago Booth School of Business.

Quote:
“Fiscal stimulus” is the proposition that by borrowing money and spending it, the government can raise the overall state of the economy, raising output and lowering unemployment. Can it work? Do the arguments for it make any sense? If so, does the economy suffer from the ailments that fiscal stimulus can cure?
Hello_World
http://useconomy.about.com/od/candidatesandtheeconomy/a/Obama_Stimulus.htm

Quote:
Obama's tax rebates were supposed to encourage consumer spending, but many experts doubted it. Why? The rebates showed up as less tax withholding. Unlike the Bush tax cuts, workers did not receive checks. As a result, most people weren't aware they got a tax rebate.


I liked this line particularly much... when my partner and I receieved a big fat $1000- each we did our patriotic duty and bought a big fat (well, slim) LCD TV.

I doubt we would have done that had it just been a tax cut.

The links indicated that US was much broader than ours, although I think Obama would have been much better served giving tax breaks up front - one thing I will credit Bush for.

But otherwise I guess on the surface I would have to say that the stimulus package looks pretty stimulating, it would be hard to argue that it failed because it was spent on dumb stuff by Obama...

Merely asking people with established views and trusted sites is still better than a google search IMHO, unless I plan to shift through hours of details and evidence... Which I'm not going to do to simply understand a foreign countries stimulus package, unless the debate really captures my interest. (Which it well may... I have some interest in economics, particularly Keynesian at the moment...)

I just wanted to add a different perspective and to understand the basic arguments.

(Actually that article you just added looks really interesting Deanhills Smile )
ocalhoun
handfleisch wrote:

Quote:

• CBO: Between 1.3 million and 3.6 million jobs saved or created.

• IHS/Global Insight: 2.45 million jobs saved or created.

• Macroeconomic Advisers: 2.3 million jobs saved or created.

• Moody’s Economy.com: 2.5 million jobs saved or created.

Yeah... take the outlying highest figure and say that it success because that high estimate 'nearly' meets the goal set... Right...

Seems like most of the sources you listed would estimate it around 2.4 million.
So... about $328,000 per job.
Very efficient!

Even at the highest job estimate there, the cost would be $218,000 per job.
Though, if we're going to consider the highest estimate, we should also consider the lowest one: 1.3 million: $605,000 per job.
handfleisch
ocalhoun wrote:

Even at the highest job estimate there, the cost would be $218,000 per job.
Though, if we're going to consider the highest estimate, we should also consider the lowest one: 1.3 million: $605,000 per job.

Uh... that's not the smartest thing you've ever written. Obviously the money didn't go to buy a job, as you portray it. If an American got a job fixing bridges in the USA through the stimulus package, the money went to the infrastructure, the materials to fix the bridge, the tools, the transport, the administration, and Americans got a new bridge.

Honestly, with moderators like you, we don't need trolls.
ocalhoun
handfleisch wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:

Even at the highest job estimate there, the cost would be $218,000 per job.
Though, if we're going to consider the highest estimate, we should also consider the lowest one: 1.3 million: $605,000 per job.

Uh... that's not the smartest thing you've ever written. Obviously the money didn't go to buy a job, as you portray it. If an American got a job fixing bridges in the USA through the stimulus package, the money went to the infrastructure, the materials to fix the bridge, the tools, the transport, the administration, and Americans got a new bridge.

Well, if you want to focus on the job creation aspects, do so.
If you want to focus on it as a massive infrastructure building project, then why are we talking about jobs at all?
Quote:

Honestly, with moderators like you, we don't need trolls.

I'm not moderating right now, and, as I've told you before, I don't moderate discussions that I'm participating in.
handfleisch
ocalhoun wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:

Even at the highest job estimate there, the cost would be $218,000 per job.
Though, if we're going to consider the highest estimate, we should also consider the lowest one: 1.3 million: $605,000 per job.

Uh... that's not the smartest thing you've ever written. Obviously the money didn't go to buy a job, as you portray it. If an American got a job fixing bridges in the USA through the stimulus package, the money went to the infrastructure, the materials to fix the bridge, the tools, the transport, the administration, and Americans got a new bridge.

Well, if you want to focus on the job creation aspects, do so.
If you want to focus on it as a massive infrastructure building project, then why are we talking about jobs at all?

Hmmm. So it's my fault you're making obtuse observations? If you would follow the thread (which is what it's for) you might figure it out
deanhills
No one is talking about the low quality of jobs that were created during the "weak" recovery. That has to be an indication more of window dressing than nuts and bolts recovery of jobs? I.e. most of the employment growth has been in low-wage occupations in the service industry. Not in the skilled workers category of manufacturing, engineering and construction that are essential for a genuine recovery of any economy.
Related topics
Mexifornia - The Destruction of America
Global Warming
global warming
July 4th 1776 - what went wrong?
Palin Article
Congratulations President Obama
Plan to Strengthen the Economy
Obama down in polls
Obama's Unemployment Numbers Keep Going Up
In India, Obama, day 1: $10B in Export, 50,000 American jobs
Republicans trashing US economy for political points?
Republicans Block Jobs Bill for Teachers & Emergency Wor
2012: Barack Obama (D) vs Mitt Romney (R)
Is america better off under obama
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Politics

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.