Another Failure of the Stimulus

[BigRob]

This is from a February 12th news conference: (From ABC)

President Obama today (Feb. 12) repeated the claim we asked about yesterday at the press briefing that Jim Owens, the CEO of Caterpillar, Inc., "said that if Congress passes our plan, this company will be able to rehire some of the folks who were just laid off."

Caterpillar announced 22,000 layoffs last month.

But after the president left the event, Owens said the exact opposite.

Asked if the stimulus package would be able to stop the 22,000 layoffs or not, Owens said, "I think realistically no. The truth is we're going to have more layoffs before we start hiring again."

Anyone else see a problem here? If we are spending this money to "save and create" jobs, why is it not "saving or creating" jobs in this situation, especially when the President is touting it as an example?

 

[Pandora]

This is from a February 12th news conference: (From ABC)



Anyone else see a problem here? If we are spending this money to "save and create" jobs, why is it not "saving or creating" jobs in this situation, especially when the President is touting it as an example?

Well it’s going to save some jobs in government. We in the school districts apparently are going to get some stuff from our sugar daddy to keep schools running without any lay offs and with our annual cola and yearly pay raise.

I personally think its sick that we get a cost of living allowance and a pay raise when the people paying us are taking pay cuts and lay offs. But I am a minority opinion of our workers in this.

Now I know this does not just apply to school districts either, I am sure this applies to all government jobs.

I think Obama has created a few new government jobs. So there is some stimulus if you want to look at it that way, it’s just the people who actually make things work. “The private sector people” who wont seem to be helped.

 

[BigRob]

Well it’s going to save some jobs in government. We in the school districts apparently are going to get some stuff from our sugar daddy to keep schools running without any lay offs and with our annual cola and yearly pay raise.

I personally think its sick that we get a cost of living allowance and a pay raise when the people paying us are taking pay cuts and lay offs. But I am a minority opinion of our workers in this.

Now I know this does not just apply to school districts either, I am sure this applies to all government jobs.

I think Obama has created a few new government jobs. So there is some stimulus if you want to look at it that way, it’s just the people who actually make things work. “The private sector people” who wont seem to be helped.

And doesn't this get the root of what many have been saying for months.... these "created" jobs are not sustainable unless the government (aka your tax dollars) will be spent into eternity to maintain them?

 

[Pandora]

And doesn't this get the root of what many have been saying for months.... these "created" jobs are not sustainable unless the government (aka your tax dollars) will be spent into eternity to maintain them?

Yes you are right.

Even if they create a few short term jobs like making solar pannels or fixing a bridge... unless obama keeps funding it those jobs end so this whole thing is just silly and a waste of tax payer money.


I dont know why obama supporters defend it that work in the private sector, I only know why the government obama supporters defend it.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

This is from a February 12th news conference: (From ABC)



Anyone else see a problem here? If we are spending this money to "save and create" jobs, why is it not "saving or creating" jobs in this situation, especially when the President is touting it as an example?

Rehire some of the 2200....that's not he same as would it stop the layoffs....it means some could get jobs back again soon.

Could it help hire some of them back now? shortly,? yes
could it mean they dont have to lay off any any ? No
COuld it mean more could be hired back , and sooner later? yes.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

This is from a February 12th news conference: (From ABC)

President Obama today (Feb. 12) repeated the claim we asked about yesterday at the press briefing that Jim Owens, the CEO of Caterpillar, Inc., "said that if Congress passes our plan, this company will be able to rehire some of the folks who were just laid off."

Caterpillar announced 22,000 layoffs last month.

But after the president left the event, Owens said the exact opposite.

Asked if the stimulus package would be able to stop the 22,000 layoffs or not, Owens said, "I think realistically no. The truth is we're going to have more layoffs before we start hiring again."

Anyone else see a problem here? If we are spending this money to "save and create" jobs, why is it not "saving or creating" jobs in this situation, especially when the President is touting it as an example?

"This is from a February 12th news conference:", huh....and, you were unable to link-to-it?

Maybe (like Dick Cheney) you merely decided to "cherry-pick" what you decided was the more-significant portion of this (supposed) news-conference, right?

​

...."said that if Congress passes our plan, this company will be able to rehire some of the folks who were just laid off."

*​

"I think realistically no. The truth is we're going to have more layoffs before we start hiring again."

So, where's the conflict, here.....that you heard Obama say the change was gonna be immediate ....and, Caterpillar's CEO denied any such suggestion (of your's)??

The only "...problem here?" is your on-going demonstration of you poor reading-comprehension skills....or, maybe linking-to the rest of this (supposed) news-conference would establish the time-line Obama was referring-to....but, you decided was insignificant....and, preferred referring-to your own (imagined/suggested) time-line.

How weak....how Rovian (an effort), of you.....

​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Well it’s going to save some jobs in government. We in the school districts apparently are going to get some stuff from our sugar daddy to keep schools running without any lay offs and with our annual cola and yearly pay raise.

Gee....how tragic.

I'm sure you'll find some way to deal with such a hit to your (imagined) "conservative"-martyr status.

​

Now I know this does not just apply to school districts either, I am sure this applies to all government jobs.

I think Obama has created a few new government jobs. So there is some stimulus if you want to look at it that way, it’s just the people who actually make things work. “The private sector people” who wont seem to be helped.

I'm sure everyone feels your (imagined) pain....I guess....

​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

And doesn't this get the root of what many have been saying for months.... these "created" jobs are not sustainable unless the government (aka your tax dollars) will be spent into eternity to maintain them?

Yeah.....Lil' Dumbya demonstrated your version of eternity.....when he decided tax-cuts were the cure for....​

"Instead, the president explained, the $5.7 trillion national debt has been reduced by $360 billion in the last three years -- $223 billion this year alone."

Your accounting-skills appear as accurate as your reading-comprehension skills.

​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Yes you are right.

Even if they create a few short term jobs like making solar pannels or fixing a bridge... unless obama keeps funding it those jobs end so this whole thing is just silly and a waste of tax payer money.

Yeah.....especially since all of those laborers will merely eat their pay-checks....rather than (actually) spending them.

Yeah, that's what's gonna happen.

​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Rehire some of the 2200....that's not he same as would it stop the layoffs....it means some could get jobs back again soon.

Could it help hire some of them back now? shortly,? yes
could it mean they dont have to lay off any any ? No
COuld it mean more could be hired back , and sooner later? yes.

Easy, there....you're (actually) thinking-things-thru....what "conservatives" (typically) call un-American behavior....

Ya' wanna look like some kind o' Elitist??!!!

​

 

[Andy]

Rehire some of the 2200....that's not he same as would it stop the layoffs....it means some could get jobs back again soon.

Could it help hire some of them back now? shortly,? yes
could it mean they dont have to lay off any any ? No
COuld it mean more could be hired back , and sooner later? yes.

But he just said it won't help them rehire.

I guess what you fail to see, is that the bank bailout didn't help anything at all. It didn't do diddly squat. Now the stimulus is going to do the exact same thing... namely nothing.

Why do you think the stimulus is going to help, when clearly the bailout did not?

Let me guess... the $8.4 Billion for public transportation to jobs they don't have, is going to have a massive boosting effect to our economy... Oh wait! No, it's the $10 Billion for a new National Institute of Health! That's going to boost the entire economy having those political Obama supporters getting a new building. Yes sir! I can see the our economy exploding any minute over that!

 

[Mr. Shaman]

But he just said it won't help them rehire.

Whew!! Ya' got some short-term-memory issues, huh?

​

"Asked if the stimulus package would be able to stop the 22,000 layoffs or not, Owens said, "I think realistically no. The truth is we're going to have more layoffs before we start hiring again."

 

[Andy]

Whew!! Ya' got some short-term-memory issues, huh?

​

"Asked if the stimulus package would be able to stop the 22,000 layoffs or not, Owens said, "I think realistically no. The truth is we're going to have more layoffs before we start hiring again."

Um... Shaman... that statement reflects every single business in the entire United States of America, that is currently facing a down turn, regardless of if they get one penny of Stimulus money or not.

MY COMPANY is saying they might have to lay off a few people before they start rehiring. And they have no chance at stimulus money whatsoever.

The whole point of the stimulus was to *STOP LAYOFFS* from happening to begin with. Which it clearly will not do. Which means it was a pointless waste of public funds.

 

[BigRob]

Rehire some of the 2200....that's not he same as would it stop the layoffs....it means some could get jobs back again soon.

Could it help hire some of them back now? shortly,? yes

Not according to the CEO.

could it mean they dont have to lay off any any ? No

They have already laid off 22,000. Their CEO says more are coming even with the stimulus. Why throw this out as an example if the CEO does not even agree with you?

COuld it mean more could be hired back , and sooner later? yes.

So we spent a trillion dollars on the idea that "maybe they will be hired back sooner rather than later." That is a big maybe that is not worth $1,000,000,000,000.

 

[BigRob]

"This is from a February 12th news conference:", huh....and, you were unable to link-to-it?

Maybe (like Dick Cheney) you merely decided to "cherry-pick" what you decided was the more-significant portion of this (supposed) news-conference, right?

​

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ViuaObu8KxY&feature=related

If we are sitting around waiting for the stimulus to "kick in", it seems that Obama supported a solution that was neither fast nor immediate. (Which is what he has been calling for nonstop)

So, where's the conflict, here.....that you heard Obama say the change was gonna be immediate ....and, Caterpillar's CEO denied any such suggestion (of your's)??

As I recall it is the President running all over the country telling us that doom is coming if we do not "act now, and act quickly." Care to tell me why it is illogical to think his solution would do both of those things?

The only "...problem here?" is your on-going demonstration of you poor reading-comprehension skills....or, maybe linking-to the rest of this (supposed) news-conference would establish the time-line Obama was referring-to....but, you decided was insignificant....and, preferred referring-to your own (imagined/suggested) time-line.

How weak....how Rovian (an effort), of you.....

​

As usual, don't debate the story, debate the person. Typically sad.