The Associated Press released a story today... an anti-republican, pro Obama piece about jobs created with stimulous money in South Carolina in a mostly Republican area.
"The new hires came from a broad area including parts of South Carolina and Georgia, and unemployment rates have continued to creep upward even since the positions were filled. It was unlikely the jobs would strongly impact rates in any single county, but Obama has said the recession would have been worse without the stimulus and jobs like those at Savannah River.
The cost? Around $500,000 per job — but that money covers overhead and other costs at the site."
Hello? $500,000 per job!!!!!!!!!!!
But that covers overhead... Jebus Christy. Overhead? Who gets that money?
So now for some Obamanomics:
"Median weekly earnings of the nation's 96.8 million full-time wage and salary workers were $754 in the first quarter of 2010." -- Source: US Bureau of Labor and Statistics http://www.bls.gov/news.release/wkyeng.nr0.htm
So $754 x 52 weeks = $39,208
For those who are math Challenged...
$500,000/39,208 = 12.75
So you give Team Obama $500,000 and they "create" 1 job... the same amount equals 12.75 jobs in the private sector. Brilliant! Way to go Team Obama.
And this is the guy who is going to bring down the cost of Health Care!
Half a Million Dollars to crate a single job? And the Associated Press is using this as a Pro Stimulus Story?
Perhaps they need to emphasize math more in the public schools?
Give Obama a million bucks and he can create 2 jobs! Sweet... the unemployment crisis will be over in no time.
And he can get that half a million by taxing the entire income of 12.75 people! That will work for sure! Now I realize that you can't have 3/4 of a person.
But is there any logic in "creating" 1 job by taking the entire yearly income of 13 people?
Can people really not see how this is mathematically impossible?
Is there any common sense at all in the Obama Administration?
And you really have to ask yourself where that $500,000 is really going. If the employee is getting $40K where is the remaining $460,000 going?
You didnt' link to the article so I can't read it but that last question is the key question. Is this story about the Savannah River nuclear power plant? If so, a lot of that $500,000 probably was already destined to go to it, since the nuclear energy industry has always received huge subsidies from the government.
Another point - you talk about taxing the median wage earners to pay for this. Obama's taxation strategy is to go after the richest people in America and the corporations like Exxon and GE which make tremendous profits but take advantage of tax loopholes to avoid paying any tax.
http://www.forbes.com/2010/04/01/ge-exx … taxes.html
The top 1% wealthiest Americans own 33% of the nations' wealth. The bottom 50% of Americans own 2.5%. It's easy to see who we should tax.
http://www.businessinsider.com/15-chart … e-wealth-2
JOBS SHOULD HAVE BEEN THE FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS.
The recession started in dec 2007 accoding to many economists.But here we are today.
The Obama administration needs to tell the American people the truth before proclaiming the country is on the upswing.
Do you remember candidate Obama's message to Joe the plumber ''we need to spread the wealth around ''
16 months into his term.
The average pay for a PUBLIC worker is $70,000 plus 40,000 in fringe benefits ( $110,000 ), public unemployment is 3% and Obama has increased the deficit 4 x 1.3 ( Bush deficit )more than president Bush.
The average pay in the PRIVATE sector is $50,000 plus $ 9000 in fringe benefits ($59,000) , private unemployment is 9.7%+
and the government will have spent $ billions in extending unemployment benefits.
Something is very very wrong with the above situation. President Obama promised jobs, the jobs that cost the taxpayer more is out of balance.
Now we know what he meant when he said '' save or create jobs ''.The unions and special interest got him elected and it appears he is doing a good job of paying them back at the expense of the private sector.
Tell me it isn't so. Enough is enough, it's time for the government to stop spending and to start cutting.
Brom the Week's BUSINESS WEEK
OBAMANOMICS April 8, 2010,
Why the Obama Plan Is Working
Polls say the economy is heading in the wrong direction. Markets say it's back on track. This time, the markets are right
By Mike Dorning
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/co … 669540.htm
I meant FROM this Week's Business Week...
MikwNV is a libertarian and therefore removed from reality.
The stimulus bill was intended to (drum roll) stimulate the economy. One way is jobs-intensive programs - and theother is consumption of jobs-intensive goods. I would be the last to say the stimulus bill has been perfectly adinistered, but a cursory look at there jobs WERE headed from 3 months before Obama took office to now would suggest we did (mostly) the right thing.
Super Economist, Joe Stiglitz on How to Fix the Recession
The professor appeals, instead to reason: "What I call 'fiscal fetishism' is really dangerous," he says. "Because cutting back means the economy goes into a downturn and the markets lose even more confidence, as it will trigger another recession or depression." If we do do that, he says, we will get the dreaded "double dip" recession. He urges ministers instead to tell the opposition and those short-sleeved, short-sighted, short-memoried traders in the City to consider the investment and returns that will come from all the public spending we are doing. It is true that the Government does seem to think that, for example, spending on our universities is just so much cash down the drain; for Stiglitz, certainly in the US, higher education remains a significant future engine of economic growth. Then again he is an academic.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/busin … 93271.html
More Joe Stiglitz on how to end the recession--
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archive … recession/
Ralph - I will check into those. May I suggest.
If you listened to anyone but Fox tabloid, you would know that the Obama stimuloous package has created many jobs through the stimulous package and would have created many more if Obama had not been hamstrung by GOPs' insistence on adding more tax cuts, which, by the way, the right wing is so lame it hasn't noticed that 95% of Americans received one. You demogogic GOP leaders ranted against the stimulous package and refused to vote for it, but they show up to the ribbon cuttings funded by the stimulous package as if they had anything to do with the creation of those jobs. They consistentently vote in favor of big business and the wealthy and vote against anything which would make them look bad. Now there is a top priority for America: making the GOP look good--impossible task since the left wing and centrists not as brainwashed as you. Reagonomics assumed that if you keep giving the rich all the advantages, the benefits would trickle down on the rest of us. They trickled something down on us alright! Why don't you good little lap dogs go to the corner with your chew toy and leave the governance of our economy to most of us who do know where our best interests lie: in our own pocketbooks!
"If you listened to anyone but Fox tabloid, you would know that the Obama stimuloous package has created many jobs through the stimulous package"
Huh? None of my sources are Fox.
The BLS is a government agency. The Associated Press is not Fox. Reuters is not Fox.
Official Unemployment is still hovering near 10%. The Government keeps extending unemployment benefits... now to 99 months. Why would they do that if so many jobs were being created?
Created or saved. Saved? Simply means one Government agency transfers borrowed money to another government agency. Saved is certainly not "created". That would be like saying I have more food this week in the refrigerator because I didn't eat any of it. Thus I "created" food.
Sometimes I think the comments here are from people who believe that Professional Wrestling is real.
Square Peg Round Hole... keep trying to fit the two together.
this is getting out of hand! whats next? <snipped link - do not promote your hubs in the forums>
I've always thought that if the top CEO's of the USA would skip a year of bonuses (they usually get what, millions of dollars for it?) they could instead re-route that to keep their people working at the company. But the problem is, greed.
The CEOs need those million $ bonuses and private jets because their positions require them to keep up a certain type of life style which requires a McMansion and at least a vacation hideaway in Aspen or the Virgin Islands. They are compensated strictly in accordance with the performance of their company's stock, and if the stock doesn't perform they can always back date or issue new options. The stockholders have every right to object at the annual meeting in a small hotel in Death Valley.
GM keeps loan promise
BY JUSTIN HYDE
FREE PRESS WASHINGTON STAFF
WASHINGTON -- General Motors CEO Ed Whitacre is to announce Wednesday that the automaker will soon pay off $5.8 billion in loans from the U.S. and Canadian governments well ahead of a June 30 deadline, a move it has promised since last year.
Whitacre is to announce the payment at GM's plant in Kansas City, Kan., and then fly to Washington to meet with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Michigan's congressional delegation, people familiar with the plans said Monday.
GM is to use the move to highlight its steps toward issuing shares to the public and helping the U.S. government get out of its 60.1% ownership stake in the automaker. GM officials have said the company could break even this year, thanks to massive cost cuts under bankruptcy. The automaker reported a $4.3-billion loss for the last half of 2009.
The automaker's payments are to include $4.7 billion to the U.S. Treasury and $1.1 billion to the Canadian government; it had already paid $2.3 billion on both loans. The money comes from a $16.4-billion escrow fund set up by the two governments as part of GM's bankruptcy that the automaker is required to pay back by June.
The U.S. government has put nearly $50 billion into saving GM from collapse, an amount Obama administration officials have said was unlikely to be returned entirely when GM begins to sell shares publicly. Based on analysts' estimates, the government's stake could approach the $30.1 billion spent by the Obama administration solely on GM's bankruptcy.
The Obama administration uses their own math to justify the effectiveness of their programs. Here is how they managed to "create or save" 2.8 million jobs!
http://biggovernment.com/capitolconfide … lion-jobs/
by Mike Russo2 years ago
During Obama's state of the union speech, he stated that he wants the minimum wage raised and is going to raise it for federal employees. He implied this will create jobs. The republican party countered...
by John Holden2 years ago
Looking for this for ages, finally found it.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKCvf8E7V1g
by Jane Stevens6 years ago
The federal government doesn't create local jobs. It's up to local business leadership. The government CAN however help by providing special loan programs. It is a waste of time to look at the Federal government for new...
by shazz011096 years ago
After all of the bailouts, TARP, etc., it seems that Obama and Congress are just spending $ that we don't have like drunken sailors. Shouldn't there be more focus on creating jobs, and improving the economy?
by fishskinfreak20086 years ago
WE HAVEN'T SEEN MUCH EVIDENCE
by freddykrueger6 years ago
Is it like bush losing 750,000 jobs a month or creating 290,000 jobs a month under obama.I understand it's taking a long time but nothing comes fast it all takes time.I remember during the campaign everyone said we...
Copyright © 2016 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.