# Who creates Jobs



## zogman (Mar 20, 2002)

December 3, 2009 12:14 PM EST by John Stossel

Who Creates Jobs?
Today, the White House holds its "Jobs Summit" stunt. It's typical Washington-think: Assemble interest groups and concoct special tax credits and handouts to the politically connected. What conceit. The political class think that economies revolve around them, that Washington makes things happen, that politicians are the most important players.

Today's Washington Post suggests that the way to create jobs is public spending by the federal government:

Obama's options are limited, as the administration already has signaled that it is unwilling to make any investments that would add significantly to the nation's ballooning deficit.

At least the Administration talks about the private sector:

"We want to make sure it is not just the public sector doing this in a vacuum," said Valerie Jarrett, a senior adviser to Obama. "It's important we engage the private sector as well." Administration officials, however, have excluded major trade associations from the summit... .

Some of those groups privately complain that their job creation ideas, including enactment of stalled free trade deals that they say would boost exports, are opposed by labor unions, which will be heavily represented at the forum.

The White House, which has clashed with some of the business groups over their opposition to health-care reform and other initiatives, says it has met repeatedly with those organizations and wants to hear fresh ideas.

Yes. I am sure those "fresh ideas" will come from the trade unions whom the White House just hasn't heard from much over the past year. At the summit they will also hear from environmental groups "Green for All" and "Coalition for the Green Bank." I'm sure they'll have great ideas for job creation.

Will at least some free-market economists get to speak? No. The White House will hear from Paul Krugman, Joe Stiglitz, and Jeffrey Sachs. "Fresh ideas" won't be heard from these folks.

They and the political class can't imagine a decentralized world where good things happen&#8230;without them. But in the real world, that's exactly how good things happen, and how jobs are created.

When government sets simple rules that everyone understands and then gets out of the way, free people create jobs.

Hong Kong demonstrates this. Last century, Hong Kong was third world poor. 50 years ago, its citizens' average income was under $700 (in today's dollars) per year. Today, it's $43,800. Hong Kong got rich because Hong Kong's rulers, stuffy British bureaucrats, practiced what I'll call "benign neglect": they enforced rule of law-kept people from stealing from each other, or killing each other--- but then sat around and drank tea. They left people alone, and free people, left alone, created prosperity.

America's founders did the same thing. The Constitution announced that American would be a country of limited government. That provided the simple and understandable rules that allowed America to grow into the richest country ever.

Today's political class thinks that they can improve on that, but they can't. Their micromanagement kills jobs. When Washington threatens to drastically change the rules of the game with health care mandates, cap and trade, financial regulation, a second stimulus, and (of course) a "jobs bill", the private sector can't make investments with any confidence. At least the Post quoted one businessman who said Washington should stop fiddling:

Peter Y. Solmssen, interim U.S. chief executive of Siemens Corp., a German conglomerate, said fixed policies would help businesses, large and small. "We both need a certain amount of certainty, which gives us the opportunity and capability to plan."
D


----------



## zogman (Mar 20, 2002)

> > December 5, 2009 10:18 PM EST by John Stossel
> >
> > Government Knows Best
> > Anyone who still believes government can create jobs should look to the taxpayer funded job training that's been happening in St. Paul, Minn. Institutions like Summit Academy use stimulus money for their "results-oriented programs" that "empower adults" to "become educated, employed, contributing members of their community."
> > ...


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

All the "job creation" that the goverment does is artificial. Once the $$$ or program gets cut so do the jobs. So now all these "job creation" bills are doing is creating another socialized goverment subsidized program. It is amazing that these people in washington don't understand this. But they are also on the hand out band wagon as well. uke:


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

The idea is to stimulate the economy. The 12th Ave bridge in Fargo and renovating old buildings at the university and federal buildings has provided jobs to people in Fargo that wouldn't have them this summer and winter had the stimulus not passed. They got jobs and spend money, thus helping to stimulate the local economy.

My brother-in-law works for a local welding company. They were literally just going to lay off workers this fall, but a government contract came in to build metal staircases (or something). They really had no jobs coming in this fall, but this will keep their people busy all winter. So, you're right, the stimulus may not provide for permanent jobs. But then again I don't believe it was intended to. The intention was to "stimulate" the economy. My portfolio has gotten much better this past year, so it's my contention that it is working. I'm not going to go to battle for the stimulus program, but those of you who think doing nothing was an answer, I feel you are way off base. Those of you who think trickle-down ecnomics would have helped the economy may or may not have a point. I really am not convinced that is the solution the country needed.


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

seabass, the 12th Ave bridge in Fargo was not funded by stimulus money. It was NOT a stimulus project. That was one of the downfalls of the stimulus money for trasportation. None of the stimulus money could be used on projects that had already been planned to be done. That included projects that were planned 5 years from now. So that money did not get used for projects that were needed most thanks to the Feds. that have no clue. Now lets see what happens to the next highway bill. If they cut it there will be more projects that were much more needed that will again be put on the back burner.


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

Okay, guess I'm wrong there. I had heard it was funded in part by stimulus funds...


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Sea bass...

All of the stimulus is a short fix. Once that money is gone....then what? I will tell you another stimulus! See the problem.

I see what you are saying about it gives people money so they spend it. But then what will happen down the road. Another need for a stimulus. All of it is artificial.

What needs to be done are long term fixes. Which is more focus on industry. Yes everyone would love to have a desk job or what ever. But the world needs ditch diggers too. Those ditch diggers are the ones that make the world function. So as a society and goverment we need to switch focus for the tech or desk jobs.....to industry and manufacturing jobs.

So give tax breaks to those businesses so they will hire more employees. Give grants to them so they can expand or new product developement.

Again with the "green Jobs".....this is all well and good. But again it is artificial. If Industry and Manufacturing started a "green" division and need to fill these spots. YES.... But the goverment trying to make "green" jobs.....disaster.

------ edit-------

Here is another thing to look at is with the Health Care bill. If in this bill they will force companies to pay for health insurance...another cost to a manufacturer or industry.....so what will happen with jobs or wages in these area's. It is something to think about when looking at the big picture. It is where the Health Care bill and Job creation legislation is fighting each other and will be counter productive. IMHO


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

> All of the stimulus is a short fix. Once that money is gone....then what? I will tell you another stimulus! See the problem.


( I don't know why I can't get the quote function to work)

But No, I don't see the problem. It was designed to "stimulate" the economy. It was not intended to provide everyone with desk jobs (indeed just the opposite; shovel-ready jobs were the main focus). Once the money is gone, the economy in theory should be on the upward swing. No additional stimulus necessary.

Chuck, you provide a lot of conjecture and believe it to be unfailingly true. And I know I'm guilty of the same. Truth is, neither one of us are economists. I've heard a lot of economists argue both ends of this (trickle down versus stimulus) very effectively. I personally believe the stimulus was more appropriate at this time. You don't. As I said before, my portfolio is growing. I believe than in another year, my stocks will have risen more. It's my opinion that a rising stock market is a precursor to job growth. In other words, I think the stimulus is working. If it is working and continues to work, then it wasn't a short fix. However, if the economy tanks and in a few years my stocks are also in the tanker (i.e. back to where they were when Obama took the office), I'll be first in line to agree you were correct. But only time will tell.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Here is the thing....once the shovel ready jobs are done. Where will they find work? The demand for the jobs was not there. It was artificially made. So again....once the job is done.....where will the work be. Manufacturing and Industrial jobs are not growing. That is where growth is needed to sustain jobs. It is the old proverb of give a man a fish feed him for a day. Teach him how to fish and feed him for a lifetime.

I agree it is "stimulating" the economy. But again artificially. Just like the "cash for clunkers" stimulated the auto market....but what will happen when these people who can't afford the new car they just bought. Or that slows down?

Alot of the "stimulus" bills did do what was intended....quick fix. Now the next 2-8 years will tell if those quick fixes was all that was needed....but yet during this time our deficit keeps grown exponentially or GNP gets getting worse. Because all of this "stimulus" is getting pushed down the road to be paid for. That is the huge problem. Also with the first stimulus's they said it would create job growth......how come the goverment now is talking about another stimulus just for job growth? Wasn't the first go around supposed to take care of that?

Yes the stocks are starting to regain momentum. That is a good sign....hopefully it will last. But my questions for you....are they back to the level they were at when the fall started to happen? If they are you are a lucky one.


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

???You don't understand how a bottom up approach stimulates the economy? But the trickle down approach makes perfect sense?

Since your welding company just received a gov contract to build stairs, you have your job for the rest of the winter. Just like always, you stop at Stamart and pick up a mountain dew and a roll for break at work (stimulation). Twice a week, you and the guys go to Mom's Kitchen for lunch (stimulation).

Stamart, due to all the activity decides not to lay off workers (stimulation). In fact, they decide to redo the tile in the bathroom since winter is coming and it's a good time to get it done. They hire a local carpenter for the job (stimulation).

Mom's kitchen needs to have a metal fence put up around their dumpsters. They've been putting if off, but business has been decent and they really need to get the job done. They hire a local welding company for the job.

Who cares if the jobs were artificially put in place? Look up "stimulus." The idea behind it is to induce a chain of events, sorta of like what I described above. I bought a car with cash for clunkers, believe it or not. It was perfect timing for me. The dealership was positively thrilled about the program. My salesman, couldn't have been happier. So, I dunno, I think you'd have a tough time arguing your point to those people.

Chuck, I'm done. I understand your points. Have a nice day.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Sea bass....

I understand how a "stimulus" works and it is working the way you described....but it won't help secure jobs. I am also glad you get my point.

But here is a take on your example for others who are reading this.



> Since your welding company just received a gov contract to build stairs, you have your job for the rest of the winter. Just like always, you stop at Stamart and pick up a mountain dew and a roll for break at work (stimulation). Twice a week, you and the guys go to Mom's Kitchen for lunch (stimulation).
> 
> Stamart, due to all the activity decides not to lay off workers (stimulation). In fact, they decide to redo the tile in the bathroom since winter is coming and it's a good time to get it done. They hire a local carpenter for the job (stimulation).
> 
> Mom's kitchen needs to have a metal fence put up around their dumpsters. They've been putting if off, but business has been decent and they really need to get the job done. They hire a local welding company for the job.


Now all of this happens in 2009-2010. 
Now that the company does not have the goverment contract in 2010-2011.....what will happen. Workers get laid off, they don't buy there soda from the mart. They don't eat lunch at the kitchen. The carpenter does not have anything to fix since the company is does not have the $$$ to redo the breakroom since they don't have any workers. The only way to save it is another "stimulus". Which will grow our nations debt. Like I stated artificial. It is all quick fix.

I agree somethings needed to be done. But a year ago when the first stimulus was being discussed and talked about it was going to create job growth.....but it hasn't. That is why a "jobs summit" has been happening. So like I stated another stimulus is going to be talked about....this time a job stimulus.....which the goverment has never created jobs. Again....the goverment has never created jobs! A need has to be out there for jobs to be created.

Now there are needs....manufacturing and industrial needs. Look at ND....oil. They need people to drill, pipelines, etc. That could be a load of jobs. The goverment should explore helping this out. everyone still needs clothes, cars, food, etc. Goverment should help out these area's instead of shipping it over seas. Like in the 1980's....buy the USA brand. Make taxes higher for anyone outsourcing to another nation. Some software companies help lines are over seas tax these US based companies big time for outsourcing. All of this can be done. Instead of another stimulus.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

> I bought a car with cash for clunkers, believe it or not. It was perfect timing for me. The dealership was positively thrilled about the program. My salesman, couldn't have been happier. So, I dunno, I think you'd have a tough time arguing your point to those people.


Here is my take on cash for clunkers.....it worked good for the short term....but now what? It is over are people still buying cars? Not so much.

Here is something that people don't look at.....those clunkers that they destroyed. yes destroyed. They should have not destroyed them. Those $2500 cars were still good running vehicles. Now the 16 year old kid looking to buy his first car. What does he have to buy....NEW. Can he afford NEW....nope. Can he afford slightly used....ie $10,000 maybe but I doubt it. So if they would not have destroyed those $2500 cars they would be on the lot and could still be sold. Now that 16 year old won't be buying a car and using his parents or just bumming off others.

http://online.wsj.com/mdc/public/page/2 ... sales.html

Look at the bar graph on this page titled what is moving us auto sales. Look at the two months the cash for clunkers was on. High sales....once the program was off....right back down. Now the month of December will tell something because many cars get bought in December. Then the first quarter next year will tell if that program has worked. Because if it is down......nope it did not work and was artificial like I have been talking about. The next 4 months will tell if this program was a waste or not. Then this time next year we can really tell how good this program was.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> It is the old proverb of give a man a fish feed him for a day. Teach him how to fish and feed him for a lifetime.


Actually Chuck the democrats have a proverb much like that. It goes: "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Make the rest of the tribe give him fish and he will voter for you forever".

Also on the cash for clunkers isn't it odd that liberals will point out the benefit of getting rid of these old cars, but want you to recycle those aluminum cans? Wasting the life left in that clunker was equivalent to how many wasted aluminum cans? How many hundreds of thousands of cans would equal that waste?



> The dealership was positively thrilled about the program. My salesman, couldn't have been happier. So, I dunno, I think you'd have a tough time arguing your point to those people.


Sure they were thrilled they were making a buck and they didn't care if it was at the expense of the American taxpayer. Would you have bought a car in the near future anyway? It looks like you made out yourself. Many who really couldn't afford a new car went out and bought one, just like the people who couldn't afford houses, but Barney Frank went to bat for them. Someone pays seabass. 
Since it created a big boom in car sales what do you think will happen to car sales for the next four, five, six months? Everyone who was looking for a new car got rid of their clunker. None of those people will be buying new cars for at least a couple of years. So what they accomplished was compressing three or four months of car sales into a condenced buying period, and now everything slows down. The only real winner was the guy who wanted to dump his clunker anyway and buy a new car. Your the only winner seabass. The car people turn out neutral and the taxpayer gets screwed.


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

> Here is my take on cash for clunkers.....it worked good for the short term....but now what? It is over are people still buying cars? Not so much.


See scenario above. and chuck, in the scenario I gave, Stamart hired the welding company to make the fence. See how the chain of events can contineu to cause job growth, even back to the original welding company?



> Now the 16 year old kid looking to buy his first car. What does he have to buy....NEW.


This makes me laugh. Are you kidding me? Are you honestly telling me that the United States is plum out of $1000 cars? I love it when people argue this. My nephew just bought one. Wow, he must have been lucky.

Of course sales backed down, but its better than nothing, right?



> None of those people will be buying new cars for at least a couple of years. So what they accomplished was compressing three or four months of car sales into a condenced buying period, and now everything slows down


.

Perfect example; stimulation when we need it most. That's exactly the point of the stimulus. Although it wasn't 3 months compressed into one short period, more like a year compressed into one short period.

The clunkers program was designed not just for the automative industry, but for all the associated industries, their workers, and their families. I don't understand how people can think its a give away to the auto industry and not see the ripple effect.

Here I thought plainsman was gone hunting or something.


----------



## bearhunter (Jan 30, 2009)

seabass said:


> [quote .
> 
> Here I thought plainsman was gone hunting or something.


 he was but we needed him to come back here so we can hear the straight scoop on things :thumb: :beer:


----------



## zogman (Mar 20, 2002)

Seabass,

This is a true story, no spin. Local mom and pop auto repair/tuneup shop told me first hand the cash for clunkers is the worst thing that could of ever happen to his business. He laid off his employee. He said he is lucky his wife has a job. They are barely making it now.

How can the stimulus work? IT IS ALL BORROWED MONEY.


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

Cash for clunkers was a joke. If you would have looked around at many of the dealerships across the country you would have seen most new car prices had been reduced on sale by $2000 to $3000 for a few months prior to the cash for clunkers program. As soon as that started they returned the new cars to sticker price. You may have gotten your $4500 off on a new car, but now deduct what your trade-in was worth, minus taxes you will pay on the $4500, and the $2000-$3000 you could already have had off just a month or so before. How much did you really make out.


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

Longshot said:


> Cash for clunkers was a joke. If you would have looked around at many of the dealerships across the country you would have seen most new car prices had been reduced on sale by $2000 to $3000 for a few months prior to the cash for clunkers program. As soon as that started they returned the new cars to sticker price. You may have gotten your $4500 off on a new car, but now deduct what your trade-in was worth, minus taxes you will pay on the $4500, and the $2000-$3000 you could already have had off just a month or so before. How much did you really make out.


You are pretty much right. The dealerships wouldn't negotiate during the process at all since there inventory was neaarly gone and the clunkers program was just about over. My van that I traded in was worth, no kidding, $400 or so. Maybe less. This came at a perfect time for us (265,000 miles on van and on last legs). It typically makes little sense to buy new IMO, and I would have never thought about a new vehcle but getting $4500 for that van seemed like a good deal. But, again the sales people didn't need to negotiate. So I estimate my trade in was worth more like $2500 or so. Not a wonderful deal, but not too bad either. I was just in Germany and they had a cash for clunkers program that, I'm told, was much bigger than ours. I wonder what they think of it.

Zogman, thanks for your story. That's too bad. It just goes to show you can't please everyone and there is no perfect remedy. I hope that isn't a common occurence and I hope they pull through.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Sea bass...

No what the auto dealers did was take away "their" stock of used cars that they could resell. So now the people selling the $1000 cars are not the auto dealers. You see they destroyed Stock for their business. Not that smart.

You keep bring back up the example of how it stimulates.....I get that. But what will happen once the goverment programs and contracts stop??? We will be right back to where we were......unless another stimulus. I hope you get that point.

Like I stated.....wasn't the first stimulus supposed to save jobs and create jobs......but what are they talking about now in washington.... A JOB STIMULUS....so the first one did not do what it was supposed to do. GET IT. So now the cycle starts over with another goverment program. GET IT. You say you do but I don't think you really grasp it.

I mean if you go back about a year ago when the first stimulus came out. What did people on this site say would happen..... Yep and it is happening.

All of this stimulus stuff does is a short term fix. Sorry if you don't see that.

How much expansion is going on in your area? I don't know of any dealerships that have expanded since the cash for clunkers. I don't know of any manufaturing companies expanding during this stimulus, or medical or industrial. So is this stimulus working like you mentioned.....Nope. It was a short term fix to keep people employed for a short period until another "stimulus" could be drawn up.....JUST LIKE NOW IN WASHINGTON.

Here is the thing this is not a Dem vs Rep thing. Both in washington voted for this and both pushed for it. Now we are all paying for it and will be in the future.....for a long time.


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

Nope Chuck, I don't get it. Because if a chain of events is stimulated, then there is no reason for additional stimuli. I just can't seem to make that clear I guess. I think most industrialized nations around the world invoked a similuar stimulus program. Are they all wrong? The second stimulus you are talking about is really only happening because the TARP funds were paid back earlier than they thought they would. I agree, that money may better be spent paying down the deficit. I'm not sold on another stimulus.

There are PLENTY of $1000 cars out there. Remember that your Toyota corollas, Ford Escorts, Chevy novas did NOT qualify as a clunkers car. The cars taht qualified were typically your V8s. There are a lot of good starter cars available. No offense, but I don't think you really know what was "not that smart" for a car dealership to do. Sell a new car or a used car? I wonder where they make more money.

But, no, again, I don't "get" what you are saying because clearly you don't get me. The stimulus was not a short term fix if the economy rebounds, right? I think the economy is rebounding. You don't. The stimulus DID create jobs, even short terms ones, with the idea that those jobs will lead to other jobs due to a massive influx of $$ into the economy. If a short term job leads to another job which leads to another job, and so on, is that a short term fix? You must still feel like it is. I don't. Is there an icon for beating your head against the wall?

It is WAY too early in my opinoin to judge whether the first stimulus "worked" or not. The money isn't even all doled out yet. My gut feeling is that is working, mostly due to my stocks getting better. As I said earlier, I feel we will really know in 3 years or so.

Chuck, business may not be expanding, but they are hanging in there. Which is all you can ask for in a poor economy. By doing nothing, I would guess that we would have seen a lot more business go under.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Here is the thing about the cash for clunkers....

They destroyed inventory. They took the cars in and sold new. That was great. Now they could have an inventory of used cars which people would be buying now. People always buy used....they don't always buy new. I am hearing this from friends that work in the auto sales....well they did until they got let go because no sales.

Now I agree that it will take time to see if the "stimulus" worked. But why then have another "stimulus". So the power to be must think that the first one is not working. Since unemployement keeps rising.

The other industrial nations followed us. That is why. When our economy tanks so does the rest of the worlds. It is sad but true.

The "short term" jobs you are speaking of....I know many people who had hours cut down to 32 instead of 40 so to keep a job. I know more people getting laid off. I know more people who have no job security anymore....this is even in the medical field! But that is another topic. So has the "stimulus" work....NOPE.

You feel the stimulus is working because your stocks are doing better or are your stocks doing better since the exchange hit almost rock bottom and investors started to speculate that things will rise? I know I added more $$$ in my investments because it was a great time to buy. Again are your stock to the point they were 2-3 years ago? If they are...good for you. A better parameter than the stock exchange is unemployement rate....that keeps rising. Or expansion in the work for....ie are industries expanding, manufaturing expanding, medical expanding, etc? Nope....they are all holding on. National debt is increasing exponentially. The dollar is not gaining or losing too much ground. So one area is pointing that it worked while many others are not or are just stable.

Here is another aspect about the "stimulus".....The National Association of Realtors is saying that home sales are up.....You know why they are up.....not so much because of the $8,000 first home buyer thing. But because investors are buying REPO's. Yep some are taking advantage of the $8,000 but why did they extend it. Then extend it to everyone not just first time home buyers.....because it did not work the first time around.

I am not going to change your mind and you are not going to change mine. But you have to question why another stimulus if like you stated the first one has not even given out all its $$$ yet. Then on my end....why since it has not worked.


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

Chuck Smith said:


> Now I agree that it will take time to see if the "stimulus" worked.


but later, Chuck writes:



> So has the "stimulus" work....NOPE.


 



> I am not going to change your mind and you are not going to change mine.


Chuck, you can't even make up your own mind!


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

You are correct it will take longer to see if it really works.

But I don't see it working at all. Neither do the people in washington....that is why they are asking for another "stimulus".

Here is the thing....I don't want to see Obama Fail. Because with some of the things they have done and if they fail.....we as a nation are in a much more world of hurt. That is with the stuff they just passed last year. Now with what they want to do....Look out.


----------



## zogman (Mar 20, 2002)

SWEET DEAL 

FOXNews.com

A public relations firm headed by Hillary Clinton's former campaign strategist shot back Wednesday at a report saying it received nearly $6 million in federal stimulus funds, calling the claim 'fundamentally inaccurate.'

Mark Penn worked as Hillary Clinton's chief strategist during the 2008 presidential campaign (AP).
A public relations firm headed by Hillary Clinton's former campaign strategist shot back Wednesday at a report saying it received nearly $6 million in federal stimulus funds, blasting the claim as "fundamentally inaccurate."

The Hill newspaper reported that two companies run by Mark Penn -- Clinton's pollster during her 2008 presidential run -- received $5.97 million from the $787 billion stimulus package so he could preserve three jobs at his public relations firm, Burson-Marsteller.

The firm had secured a contract to work on a campaign advertising the nation's switch from analog to digital television, and the Hill reported that $2.8 million of that contract was given to Penn's polling firm, Penn, Schoen & Berland Associates.

But Burson-Marsteller on Wednesday disputed the newspaper's report, calling it "fundamentally inaccurate" in a statement. The firm said it was awarded a "competitive bid contract" in 2009 to support the Federal Communications Commission's initiative to "educate and advertise the congressionally mandated switch to digital television."

The firm said the contract, which included other vendors, was completed "under budget" and cost $4.36 million -- not $6 million.

"Of the $4.36 million actually spent, most went for the media buy and to a long list of 3rd party vendors," the firm said in its statement. "Penn Schoen Berland total fees for creation of the ad campaign were $142,000."

In an interview with FoxNews.com, spokesman Paul Cordasco said the firm was "not just given all the money up front."

Cordasco said the contract allowed for the firm to request funds reaching $6 million, but that Burson-Marsteller did not because it was able to complete the initiative under budget.

Republicans have blasted the use of federal stimulus dollars, claiming the money has gone to many projects that have little or nothing to do with job creation.

Senators John McCain, R-Ariz., and Tom Coburn, R-Okla., held a news conference Tuesday in which they released a report criticizing 100 projects paid for by the stimulus package that they claim wasted $7 billion.

Are we having fun yet??????? :******: Lets see 3 jobs = 6 million Sign me up oke:


----------



## brittanypoint (Feb 15, 2009)

Screw the stimulus. I've got a good job and I'm still broke due to the fact my wife cant find a job since there aren't any. Its done absolutely nothing but screw up wyoming economy. "Lets go green and use wind energy." Damn hippies and global warming freaks. Any one been outside lately. Its colder than hell. I will give someone the shirt off my back and help someone who needs a few bucks,but I wouldn't piss on Obama if he was on fire.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> but I wouldn't piss on Obama if he was on fire.


  Me either, but hmmmmm if he wasn't on fire?????

I suppose I should say something serious if I have to. 

seabass, cash for clunkers was a stimulus as long as it lasted. However, as Chuck and I have said it concentrated sales for a short period. When would you have purchased a new vehicle if not for this program? I would venture to say that perhaps 75% of these people were in need of a new vehicle and would have purchased this year at some point. So if you take car sales that would normally have occurred over a 12 month period and concentrate it into one or two months it makes things look real good for a short term. What happens for the next ten months? Instead of moderate sales over a long period we had high sales for a short period followed by sales that are now very low. If people who needed cars purchased them in, lets say May, they will not be purchasing in June through December as they would have otherwise. So what they actually created was a one month stimulus followed by an eleven month depression. Nothing really changed except we need 30% less car salesmen for the rest of the year. That and the poor guy who couldn't even afford the car under the stimulus plan doesn't have your $400 clunker to purchase to get him to his dish washing job at the restaurant across town. 
That doesn't even bring into account the waste. For people who want us to save our aluminum cans to throw away entire vehicles is the epitome of hypocrisy.


----------

