Obama's Fuzzy 'Job-Creating' Math
Posted by Bobby Eberle
January 14, 2010 at 9:06 am
>> Printer-Friendly Version
Ok, class... today's lesson will be on mathematics. No moans and groans from the audience, please. This is an exciting, "new" math. We'll call it Obama's Fuzzy Math or OFM.
OFM is quite fascinating. In most math problems if you subtract from a number, the result is a smaller number. But not with OFM. Using Obama's system, as more people lose their jobs -- hundreds of thousands every month -- the number of jobs created or saved (whatever that means) has actually gone up. It's the new subtraction. But, of course, it doesn't add up.
In December, 85,000 jobs were lost, and the unemployment rate remained at 10 percent. Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) summed up the situation perfectly by saying, "Democrats continue to advance a liberal agenda that is doing more harm than good. The policies of higher taxes, runaway spending, record debt and government takeovers, are having a chilling effect on jobs creators across the country."
Obama's policies certainly have had a chilling effect on job creators, but let's take a look at how Obama sees things using our new technique of Obama's Fuzzy Math.
As noted in an AP story on GOPUSA, "The White House has abandoned its controversial method of counting jobs under President Barack Obama's economic stimulus, making it impossible to track the number of jobs saved or created with the $787 billion in recovery money."
The Obama administration was first claiming that 640,000 were created or saved from the economic stimulus plan. "But more errors were found, with tens of thousands of problems documented in corrected counts, from the substantive to the clerical."
So... what does Obama do? He scraps his plan and comes up with a new method for accounting that's even fuzzier. As noted by the AP, "The Obama administration now is making it easier to give the stimulus credit for hiring. It's no longer about counting a job as saved or created; now it's a matter of counting jobs funded by the stimulus."
Is Obama serious? The AP, which is not known for it's unbiased reporting, even notes that "any stimulus money used to cover payroll will be included in the jobs credited to the program, including pay raises for existing employees and pay for people who never were in jeopardy of losing their positions."
So, guess what Obama's new claim is? The 640,000 number is out. The 2 million number is in. Wow! Now that's quite a change. And, yes... with a straight face, White House officials are now saying that the economic stimulus plan has created or saved up to 2 million jobs.
In another AP story on GOPUSA, Obama is all smiles because of a report produced by his own economic council that states "the annual growth rate last year would have been roughly 2 percentage points lower, and there would have been 1.5 million to 2 million fewer jobs" without the stimulus.
Of course, it's impossible to prove what would have, should have, or could have happened if something was not done, but that doesn't stop Obama for taking credit for it.
And now Obama wants another stimulus bill... more money out of all our pockets to fund jobs that HE thinks should be funded. Doesn't it make sense that jobs will be created when American companies are ready to hire? Creating a job through the government when the economy won't support it on its own makes no sense. The only reason that job exists is because the government says it must exist and taxpayers are paying the salary.
Obama's Fuzzy Math is more than just fuzzy. It's a clear attempt to rally public opinion for a set of policies that take power away from the American people, put more power in the hands of government, and drive the country further into massive debt. That kind of math just doesn't add up.
Posted in Uncategorized |
Send comments to The Loft
| Recommend to Friend
11 Comments »
Obama's Fuzzy 'Job-Creating' Math
11 Comments
|
 Comment by jwinks500
January 14, 2010 @ 11:29 am
I wonder if this math adds up???
First Lady Michelle Obama's Servant List and Pay Scale
First Lady Requires More Than Twenty Attendants
-
$172,2000 - Sher, Susan (Chief Of Staff)
-
$140,000 - Frye, Jocelyn C .. (Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of Policy And Projects For The First Lady)
-
$113,000 - Rogers, Desiree G (Special Assistant to the President and White House Social Secretary)
-
$102,000 - Johnston, Camille Y. (Special Assistant to the President and Director of Communications for the First Lady)
-
$100,000 - Winter, Melissa E. (Special Assistant to the President and Deputy Chief Of Staff to the First Lady)
-
$90,000 - Medina , David S. (Deputy Chief Of Staff to the First Lady)
-
$84,000 - Lelyveld, Catherine M. (Director and Press Secretary to the First Lady)
-
$75,000 - Starkey, Frances M. (Director of Scheduling and Advance for the First Lady)
-
$70,000 - Sanders, Trooper (Deputy Director of Policy and Projects for the First Lady)
-
$65,000 - Burnough, Erinn J... (Deputy Director and Deputy Social Secretary)
-
$64,000 - Reinstein, Joseph B. (Deputy Director and Deputy Social Secretary)
-
$62,000 - Goodman, Jennifer R. (Deputy Director of Scheduling and Events Coordinator For The First Lady)
-
$60,000 - Fitts, Alan O. (Deputy Dir ector of Advance and Trip Director for the First Lady)
-
$57,500 - Lewis, Dana M. (Special Assistant and Personal Aide to the First Lady)
-
$52,500 - Mustaphi, Semonti M. (Associate Director and Deputy Press Secretary To The First Lady)
-
$50,000 - Jarvis, Kristen E. (Special=2 0Assistant for Scheduling and Traveling Aide To The First Lady)
-
$45,000 - Lechtenberg, Tyler A. (Associate Director of Correspondence For The First Lady)
-
$43,000 - Tubman, Samantha (Deputy Associate Director, Social Office)
-
$40,000 - Boswell, Joseph J. (Executive Assistant to the Chief Of Staff to the First Lady)
-
$36,000 - Armbruster, Sally M. (Staff Assistant to the Social Secretary)
-
$35,000 - Bookey, Natalie (Staff Assistant)
-
$35,000 - Jackson, Deilia A. (Deputy Associate Director of Correspondence for the First Lady)
(This is community organizing at it's finest.)
There has NEVER been anyone in the White House at any time who has created such an army of staffers whose sole duties are the facilitation of the First Lady's social life. One wonders why she needs so much help, at taxpayer expense,when even Hillary, only had three; Jackie Kennedy one; Laura Bush one; and prior to Mamie Eisenhower social help came from the President's own pocket.
Note: This does not include makeup artist Ingrid Grimes-Miles, 49, and "First Hairstylist" Johnny Wright, 31, both of whom traveled aboard Air Force One to Europe ..
FRIENDS.....THESE SALARIES ADD UP TO SIX MILLION, THREE HUNDRED SIXTY FOUR THOUSAND DOLLARS ($6,364,000)FOR THE 4 YEARS OF OFFICE????? AND WE ARE IN A RECESSION
|
|
 Comment by Confused1
January 14, 2010 @ 11:42 am
Let's call the Obama Fuzzy Math what it is--LIES, it is all he knows how to do well.
|
|
 Comment by kengmarx
January 14, 2010 @ 11:42 am
Let's assume, for a minute, that $787 billion actually bought 2 million new jobs (which we know it didn't). That works out to $393,500.00 per job. Wow! Of course, we know only part of that money has been expended and a lot of it went to save fish and rodents, but, hey!
Perhaps a better use would have been to directly pay, say 7 million people. Each would receive $112,428. But, of course, like all such federal programs, somebody else would have had to come up with an equivalent amount in subsequent years. You can plug any numbers you wish into the equation and the end result is the same, money down a black hole!
|
|
 Comment by thinker
January 14, 2010 @ 11:46 am
It is much worse: People without a job for a year or more are not counted (a lie to lower stats: "they gave up" - they don't eat snow and can't pay bills with air), blue collar workers are not counted, and in December we lost probably well over 500,000 jobs, but pre-Christmas temporary jobs created "only" 85,000 job loss, so - in January it will hit double - 1,000,000 lost????
As usual, MSM will say: "worse than expected".
BTW - what do you thing about upcoming amnesty for over 30 million illegals? According official mantra, it "will help economic recovery", right?
We ain't as stupid as they look!!!
|
|
 Comment by fastracker4
January 14, 2010 @ 12:50 pm
Obamas math does add up absolutely correct if you take into account that we did indeed lose 85,000 jobs. Then when you are comparing this number to the population Obama sees as the American citizenry its no wonder the percentages stay the same. You see, the 85,000 jobs lost are calculated from actual bonafide US citizens. The percentage stays level when you add back all of the people who are actually employed in the United States. Bear in mind, this is where the road splits. He is using all illegals, non-resident aliens, foreign nationals among others in his figures. What must be understood is that he and congress arent just counting actual citizens but in fact are using over 25M illegals in their numbers where it will benefit them. They see all of these other people who have no right to be here as part of their base numbers rather than accurately reporting the correct figures for the American people to see.
|
|
 Comment by wardjh
January 14, 2010 @ 12:58 pm
It reminds me of the old saw about the shamin that said if you give me money good things will come your way. So you give him money and the next day you break your leg.
His response, it would have been worse if you had not given me money.
"Cheer up, things could be worse." So I cheered up, and sure enough, things got worse.
|
|
Comment by fastracker4
January 14, 2010 @ 1:02 pm
Thinker has a good point. There is yet another point to bear in mind. All of this rhetoric regarding how a mass amnesty of illegals will help our economic recovery is so blatantly ill conceived and obviously counter productive to our nations economic recovery its very nearly heroic to even mention it in public! Imagine a child telling you his messy room is good for the cleanliness of the entire house and then he stares at you with a grin waiting for everyone to applause. Amazing! Taking a 30M strong population of invading leeches to our society and making them legal to be here does nothing for our economic recovery other than skew the numbers because now they are on the legal side of the line rather than the illegal side. Its a shuffling tactic. Now they can legally keep their jobs that they had previously taken away from the jobless American landscape except now they cant be run off and deported back home where they need to be. Right now in mexico there is a war going on against the drug cartels. No mexican citizen running to us for a new home is willing or valiant enough to join their army to help in this fight. Its easier to come here and get on welfare at our expense. We even speak their language for them so its even easier. Its time to wake up and realize these are not the kind of people that make up an American citizenry that all of us would be proud to call neighbor, friend or fellow American. The American Dream was designed by our founding fathers for all of us American citizens that followed as their sons and daughters. It isnt a concept open and available to every coward refugee that stumbles across our border.
|
|
 Comment by MrT
January 14, 2010 @ 3:42 pm
Try telling workers it's not what we actually PAY you...it's what we SAY we pay you......can they buy goods and services with words........what a joke, albeit it a sad one! Brown is doing so well in Mass, even if he doens't win it's a big slap to the head of the democratic party! Celebrating this weekend, no matter how it turns out.....it's GREAT!
|
|
 Comment by onewildman
January 14, 2010 @ 4:21 pm
I sat down and figured out that I never see 1/3 of my pay. There is soc. sec., medicare, disability, workers comp tax. Ca tax and fed. tax. I will never see money from disability unless I get hurt, I may never see any soc. sec. as its should be broke by the time I retire. workers comp only pays if you get hurt on the job. last medicare will most likely be broke by the time I am old enough to use it. so it seams to me I get verry little for the $18,000 dollars the deduct from my check. Also why should I be paying money to Medicare and soc. sec. if they wont be their when I reach retirement. That use to be 65, now I'm looking at 75 to 80 years old.
|
|
Comment by onewildman
January 14, 2010 @ 6:28 pm
I have one I have a friend who is an accountant. He tells me that the payments that you receive from Soc.sec. is suppose to be calculated so you would not receive the full amount due to you until you are 120 years old most people don't even get half what is rightfully due!
|
|
 Comment by RME KRNL
January 15, 2010 @ 3:51 am
Agree with MrT. Whether Brown wins in Mass. next week or not, he's closed in on the Dem candidate fast enough and come close enough that that alone should make Dems worry about the tsunami of disapproval that's coming for all of them in 2010.
|
Comments RSS
TrackBack URI
You must be LOGGED IN to post a comment.
|
 |
|
Add Bobby's Facebook Page
Follow TeamGOPUSA on Twitter
