The White House: We Don't Create Jobs

[Karmadillo]

In your face, FDR.

http://www.businessinsider.com/white-house-we-dont-create-jobs-2011-8

As President Barack Obama once again pivots to focus on economic growth, Press Secretary Jay Carney declared Thursday that "the White House doesn't create jobs."

While undoubtedly true, it was certainly not a sentiment Obama wants to project as Republicans ratchet up criticism of his leadership on economic issues, and his presidential campaign kicks into high gear.

After a month devoted to raising the debt limit, on Tuesday Obama announced a new focus on boosting employment — at least his seventh such announcement in his presidency.

Facing tough questions from reporters on what Obama is doing to create jobs today, Carney responded that Obama was meeting with senior advisors to plot a way forward on the issue.

more...

[Brickbat]

1. Well, that's for damn sure.

We'll be hearing that one in 2012 campaign ads.

[closeupready]

3. LOL

"We'll be hearing that one in 2012 campaign ads." :rofl: (Er, maybe not! ;) )

[emulatorloo]

4. Karmadillo is selectively quoting. The rest of the sentence:

"The White House doesn't create jobs," Carney said, adding "the government, together — White House, Congress — creates policies that allow for greater job creation."


Do you disagree that Congress has to be part of the solution?

[Karmadillo]

6. Am I selectively quoting?

nt

[emulatorloo]

10. Yes you are.

"The White House doesn't create jobs," Carney said, adding "the government, together — White House, Congress — creates policies that allow for greater job creation."

You've effectively misrepresented what was said by only quoting the first part.

You know as well as I do that Congress has to be part of the solution.

[Karmadillo]

13. Click on the link and tell me how I selectively quoted.

nt

[emulatorloo]

20. I did I read the article I provided the full quote which you left out.

Once again:

"The White House doesn't create jobs," Carney said, adding "the government, together — White House, Congress — creates policies that allow for greater job creation."

Please don't give me any bullshit about DU copyright rules. You choose to selectively quote. Your agenda is to take a rational statement about how govt works and misrepresent it.

[Karmadillo]

23. I left it out? Where in the first four paragraphs is the

part you quoted? Not that it matters. The part BI quoted adeequately demonstrates the laissez-faire approach of this White House. But caterwaul to distract all you want. The facts don't support you.

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[markpkessinger]

48. I am not happy with the President either, but yes, you did selectively quote

You yourself told emulatoor to "click on 5h3 link." Hiding behind DU's four paragraph rule in order to misrepresent a quote is simply dishonest. And I say that as someone who is royally piased at thisa Administration. But dishonest argumentation doesn't help anyone's cause.

[Karmadillo]

137. Well, not to get into another deleted subthread, but you shouldn't smear

someone as dishonest just to try to score a point on a discussion board, especially when your accusation is without merit. As noted elsewhere, I copied the first four paragraphs as is standard practice. The second part of the quote hardly lessens the awfulness of the first part (see Better Believe It's #36 below) as Obama is on the record as it's the job of the private sector to create jobs (how're they doing?). FDR had a different and better view. Also as noted elsewhere, I didn't include the damning information about the administration's embrace of trade agreements and tax cuts and patent law reform to create jobs and that would have strengthened the impact of the post.

[TheKentuckian]

113. So, why has he not countermanded Reagan's ban on work programs?

That says all that needs to be said about this.

They are using the same old code-speak Republicans have for decades that only the private sector creates jobs and government creates a business friendly environment (aka lax or no regulation and low or no taxes). I've been hearing this song and dance all my life and so have you, if you've been paying attention.

[Angry Dragon]

46. Yes you are, emulatorloo is correct

More quote: 'Carney listed legislative priorities the president believes will create jobs, including an infrastructure bank, the passage of free trade agreements, and tax cuts. But he would not say what was being done to further those goals while Congress takes a month-long vacation'

Love the bold parts

[Karmadillo]

54. You're right. I did leave out some good stuff. My bad. I'm so

evil. This is actually more depressing that what I posted. It's bad enough for a White House to avoid public works that would put a lot of unemployed Americans to work, but it's even worse to see them adopting policies that will put even more Americans out of work.


:hi:

[Angry Dragon]

62. ..............

:hi:

[trueblue2007]

63. YES YOU ARE.

"The White House doesn't create jobs," Carney said, adding "the government, together — White House, Congress — creates policies that allow for greater job creation."


*****why didn't post the whole sentence?

[Karmadillo]

66. I CAN"T RESPOND WHEN YOU MAKE MY EARS HURT!!!!!!

nt

[bluestate10]

118. What a silly post.

:puke:

[Karmadillo]

122. What a silly post.

:hi:

[bluestate10]

120. What a silly post.

:puke:

[Karmadillo]

123. What a silly post.

:hi:

[theophilus]

71. The rest of the quote still suggests that "The government doesn't create jobs."

If asked, I am pretty sure the President and Mr. Carney would say that the private sector creates jobs. I saw Austan Goolsbee on Colbert some weeks back and Stephen was bating him with "Government doesn't create jobs. Government never created one job." Goolsbee would not argue with that assessment.
Colbert seemed surprised.

Start at :45 in Pt. 3

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/386859/may-18-2011/exclusive---austan-goolsbee-extended-interview-pt--3

I don't think Mr. Obama will state that the gov't. creates, or should create, jobs. I think these guys are very wrong.

[Karmadillo]

73. Thank you for posting this.

nt

[theophilus]

112. You are very welcome. n/t

[Renew Deal]

98. Yes

:spank:

[bluestate10]

116. Sure as hell looks that way. nt

[jaxx]

9. Ah, another cherry picked quote.

Thanks for providing the whole thing.

[Karmadillo]

131. You mean one where we get the pit and the corporations get the cherry?

nt

[zipplewrath]

14. FDR did

Do you disagree that FDR created jobs? Do you agree it might be a good idea if Obama actually thought about creating some?

[closeupready]

He sure did. Millions and millions, through the WPA.

+1000.

[Recursion]

And the unemployment rate never got below 15%

Direct hiring doesn't do as much as a lot of us seem to think it does.

[closeupready]

28. Would have been far higher without it, and the misery would have lasted far longer.

nt

[Karmadillo]

39. Apparently some Democrats have adopted the rightwing meme that suffering is good for the soul, at

least for the souls of workers. The rich, on the other hand, get bailouts and bonuses.

[closeupready]

53. self-delete

self-delete

[Donnachaidh]

35. so this is the reason why Obama shouldn't bother?

Honestly -- the thought processes are amazing....... :wow:

[FogerRox]

65. non ag Unemployment dipped a hair below 10%, total dipped to a hair below 15%

But I dont know how anyone can compare U3 & U6 to figures collected in the '30's.

And when you consider the GNP increases

1929=96 billion
1936=103 billion

Growth:

'34=11%
'35=9%
'36=13.9%

Looks good to me.

[Karmadillo]

21. The Defenders appaently prefer policies designed to convince the private market to hire. FDR's

programs were apparently a misguided big government effortm, a deadend path we must not follow.

[closeupready]

24. Right. Or Reagan's Tinckle-On Voodoo Economics.

Which, as we know, don't work.

[Karmadillo]

33. It's hard to figure what these people are thinking. Reagan's administration was

a disaster for the American working class and yet we have Democrats now arguing we need "policies" to persuade the private market to hire when the private market isn't hiring and people continue out of work for months and food stamp use skyrockets. Democrats used to be against that sort of thing. I guess now we're all laissez-faire capitalists. Go Hoover!

[emulatorloo]

41. So FDR's Congress had nothing to do with that? Or did FDR singlehandedly do it

That is the point of the full Carney quote, that Karmadillo doesn't want you to see.

"The White House doesn't create jobs," Carney said, adding "the government, together — White House, Congress — creates policies that allow for greater job creation."

[zipplewrath]

69. Actually

FDR and the congress created JOBS, not just " policies that allow for greater job creation".

That's "the" point.

[treestar]

77. Exactly!

This obsession with sole presidential power is ridiculous! They want an all powerful benign king.

[mzmolly]

38. Thanks for shedding light on the attempt

to mislead.

[Karmadillo]

58. Hey, emulatorloo. Why did you leave out the part re: the White House advocating tax cuts and trade

agreements to create jobs? What are you trying to cover up? Oh the intelletual dishonesty!!!!!!! Shame!!!!!!!

[yurbud]

90. while he is selectively quoting, Carney pretty much set that up for an edit

that makes it look like Obama agrees with that Republican talking point.

[Renew Deal]

99. Well that's a bit different.

;)

[bluestate10]

117. Good job clearing away the bullshit. The levels that some people will stoop to. nt

[Karmadillo]

129. LOL. Sic 'em.

nt

[emulatorloo]

""The government, together — White House, Congress — creates policies that allow for greater job cre

creation"


You left that part out.

[spanone]

8. partial quote....partial truth

[Bluerthanblue]

59. selective editing can make anything bad-

sad to see that here.

thanks for pointing it out.

[Karmadillo]

60. The White House, instead of jobs programs, wants trade agreements and

tax cuts. You left that part out. Why?

[closeupready]

2. Yet, if employment was going bonkers, they would take credit.

Gotta love that double standard.

[LaurenG]

5. Then what the hell was all that road work for he had going on last year?

I wish these people would get on the same page!

[JVS]

145. You know the saying, "If at first you don't succeed, sneak away and deny that you've ever tried"

[abelenkpe]

7. OMG

good job giving republicans a great sound bite to use in the elections Carney.



:banghead:

[FiveGoodMen]

11. The GOP has no need to run any candidate against Obama

They already have everything they want.

[Confusious]

26. Why change a winning horse?

He gives them everything they want, and takes all the blame.

win/win for them if you ask me. Why change that?

[closeupready]

31. Seriously.

Political Science 101.

[nadinbrzezinski]

12. They are no longer channeling Reagan, they are channeling HOOVER

GOOD GOD!

[emulatorloo]

16. Read the full quote:

"The White House doesn't create jobs," Carney said, adding "the government, together — White House, Congress — creates policies that allow for greater job creation."

What part of the full statement is not true?

[nadinbrzezinski]

30. Here some quotes from Hoover

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110110010058AAfkgkP

After you read them you will understand why I said what I said.

Krugman was right... sad but true.

[theaocp]

15. Partial quote or not, Carney is a fucking clown and bad at his job.

Fire him already and he can start over at the State Fair.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[spanone]

22. bullshit. i can choose part of your op and make you look like a clown too

[theaocp]

42. The man is paid for speaking well.

If he can't choose his words more carefully, he needs to be fired.

[emulatorloo]

45. Karmadillo is only giving you half the quote.

[Karmadillo]

64. Smearing me to deflect from the White House's rejection of FDR jobs programs while embracing trade

agreements and tax cuts. NAFTA cost us hundreds of thousands of jobs. Why the cover up? Why don't you want DUers to know this? SHAME!!!!

[Bluerthanblue]

67. If you have a problem with NAFTA and trade agreements, voice it-

you don't need to deceive to make your point, IF your point has any value.

You don't seem to have a problem smearing others, and when called on it try and deflect the issue. Your OP is intentional deception.

[Karmadillo]

72. The OP isn't deceptive, but if you keep repeating the charge, it will magically become

deceptive. Go! Seventeen more posts stating the same inaccurate desperate defense will get you there. Go, dude!

And I have voiced my problems with NAFTA and trade agreements. The point, which you are apparently intentionally misunderstanding, is the White House is embracing trade agreements and tax cuts (which don't create jobs) instead of an FDR jobs program (which would create jobs). It's there in the article, but the partial quote choir keeps ignoring that devastating part of the story linked to in the OP. I left that out to keep within DU's four paragraph rule even though it strenthens my case. Why don't the Defenders attack me for that instead of the irrelevant half quote? I mean, after all, I left both out.

[Bluerthanblue]

80. first off-

I'm not a dude-

The fact that the quote which Zeke Miller used, and you are trying to use to your own advantage will have legs, just like any other angry deceptive meme often does is pretty frustrating to me, and a sad commentary on how little "we" differ from those we claim to be better than.

The President and the white house CANNOT create jobs alone- it takes a concerted effort as Carney went on to say. Do you deny that?

I'm sorry, but I don't buy the "4 paragraph" excuse- you could very easily have snipped out and put the entire quote in- but that wouldn't have forwarded your own agenda.

I hope people will continue to call you out on the partial quote- it would show that DU really does care about not manipulating words.

[Karmadillo]

84. Dudette?

And why don't you respond to your own manipulation by not pointing out I left out the part about the White House advocating trade agreements and tax cuts to create jobs (and see Better Believe It's #89 post to see where they're coming from)? And, really, I understand your need to deflect from the White House position as it's shameful for a Democratic adminsistration to embrace it, but smearing me is probably not a very honorable way of doing it.

[phleshdef]

108. Your OP is right out of the Andrew Breitbart playbook.

Its dishonest. It insinuates that Carney is somehow saying its not the President's job to create jobs. You know damn good and well thats what you want to imply. You also know very well that he was saying that Congress cooperating on job creation policy is the way it gets done. And you also know thats 100% true.

But despite all that you know, you took a fragment of the quote and attempted to insinuate that he was saying something different, something that would make the administration look bad. Thats how the right wing smears people. And thats exactly what you have done here.

[Karmadillo]

130. Your OP is right out of the My Babysitter is a Vampire playbook.

As you are well aware, I simply posted the Business Insider headline and first four paragraphs. As other posters have pointed out, the unquoted half of the quote does not make the White Houe position any less terrible. See post Better Believe It's post #36 for Obama's views on his role as an enabler of the private market. FDR had a different and better view of how government should act in the face of massive suffering.

[in_cog_ni_to]

83. That's a lie. He quoted the first paragraph in its entirety. n/t

[Bluerthanblue]

86. He quoted only a partial quote- at least Zeke Miller goes on to

include the entire statement- it was deceptive for Miller to put a period where there was a comma. But he didn't simply link to the actual entire quote, leaving people with the illusion that what he quoted was the correct statement.

Karmadillo did. Its a fact that many people will not click on links and just go with the info provided in the OP.

:shrug:

If I repeat something that isn't true to make a point, don't I bear responsibility for what I repeat???

[in_cog_ni_to]

96. But the OP quoted the first paragraph as it was written. He did not selectively quote it. n/t

[Bluerthanblue]

104. this seems futile- but here is

a link to rules about 'quotes'.

Miller quoted only PART of what Carney said in the beginning of his article. But he then finished with the complete quote- which in context, and in full is QUITE different then the title of the piece would suggest. He redeemed himself a little by at least quoting the full statement.

Karmadillo, only posted to the abbreviated- mis-quote.(a partial quote in this instance becomes a mis-quote because it changes the essential meaning of the quote.)

.....
If you do use a partial quote in the intro, you must give the full quote later in the story, otherwise the reader may believe that it is you using slang.


Some bad journalists use quotation marks around words or phrases which they think might be defamatory. They mistakenly believe that, by showing that the words were said by someone else, they themselves will not be sued for defamation. This is not so. If you use defamatory words, you can be sued, whether they were your words or someone else's, whether or not they were in quotes (See Chapters 69 and 70 on Defamation).

.....
Whether you use a full quote, a partial quote or an incomplete quote, you must not take it out of context. The most common complaint against journalists - after that of misquoting itself - is the accusation that the reporter took the statement out of context.


A journalist might be tempted to quote someone as saying: "I entirely agree that the plans are good" when, in fact, what he said was "I entirely agree that the plans are good, but they are unworkable and unsuitable." That is bad journalism.

from:http://www.thenewsmanual.net/Manuals%20Volume%201/volume1_08.htm#partial

the quote used as it is being used by Karmadillo is deceptive imo. The information I've linked to explains why and how I've come to that opinion.

[emulatorloo]

105. Excellent link and explanation.

I appreciate you finding and posting it.

[Bluerthanblue]

111. I appreciate

your taking the effort to point out the entire quote right from the beginning.

The difference between what is being inferred and what was actually said is pretty damning imo.

thanks.

[Karmadillo]

107. this seems futile--but

see post #117. Also, why don't either of you respond to my failure to include the paragraph noting the White House's embrace of trade agreements and tax cuts to increase jobs? Shouldn't I have included that too? Isn't that deception on my part? It would have made clear what Carney was talking about and how far the administratino is from a sane FDR solution?

[Bluerthanblue]

89. he did choose his words carefully- Miller didn't use them

in their entirety, until he'd suckered everyone in with his mis-quote.

And people here are running with it and acting like it is what was actually said.

It wasn't.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

17. Oh, I don't know. Obama has created a couple more wars to employ the troops.

And, gave us that wonderful "surge" in Afghanistan that has proven to be sooooooo effective.

[aquart]

19. Yeah. We noticed.

[tridim]

25. Out of context bullshit. That's the way the RW machine does things.

[emulatorloo]

47. and more and more prevalent here.

The worst part is that when the intellectual dishonest of this selective quotation is pointed out the reaction is

- to deny it
- to claim they are being "personally attacked"
- to project their intellectual dishonesty on you ("you are ignoring the facts"
- or to admit it and claim it doesn't matter.

[Karmadillo]

68. Hey, emulatorloo. The part about the White House advocating trade agreements and

tax cuts to create jobs (LOL, except it makes one weep given the widespread suffering out there) isn't in the first four paragraphs and I, therefore, didn't include that, even though it strengthens the case against the White House's laissez-faire job policy. Why aren't you accusing me of being a liar about that? And, let's face, it's very strange you only want to quote the part not in the first four paragraphs that you mistakenly things debunks the headline quote. Kind of dishonest, isn't it?

[markpkessinger]

50. I am very unhappy with the President, but you're right...

...this was one clause lifted from an entire sentence in order to misrepresent the import of what was said. It was out of line.

[Bluerthanblue]

70. thats the way I see it too- seems like

FOX news style.

(at best)

[piratefish08]

27. Holy FUCK! someone told the truuuuuth........

Bad on you Carney.

It's got to be hard to work in DC as the curtain is being ripped down.......

[Nuclear Unicorn]

29. I read the other day that high dollar donors get some pretty cush jobs

It takes money to make money, and all that.

[chill_wind]

32. But you did create a catfood commssion

in tribute to the ruling class's deficit hysteria.

[Better Believe It]

36. President Obama: "I've never believed that government's role is to create jobs or prosperity"

Excerpt)

The White House
Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release September 08, 2010
Remarks by the President on the Economy in Parma, Ohio
Cuyahoga Community College West Campus, Parma, Ohio


"Now, we have a different vision for the future. See, I’ve never believed that government has all the answers to our problems. I’ve never believed that government’s role is to create jobs or prosperity. I believe it’s the drive and the ingenuity of our entrepreneurs, our small businesses; the skill and dedication of our workers -- (applause) -- that’s made us the wealthiest nation on Earth. (Applause.) I believe it’s the private sector that must be the main engine for our recovery.

I believe government should be lean; government should be efficient. I believe government should leave people free to make the choices they think are best for themselves and their families, so long as those choices don’t hurt others. (Applause.)"

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2010/09/08/remarks-president-economy-parma-ohio


The Obama Administration won't lift President Reagan's ban prohibiting direct WPA type federal jobs programs. President Obama believes it's not the governments role to lead this nation out of the Great Recession by creating useful public works jobs and demand. A "lean government" stays out of the way and lets Wall Street and corporate America (entrepreneurs) perform their magic.

Some magic.

Well, they did make almost 10 million jobs disappear. BBI


Excerpts from two articles by Alec MacGillis -

By Alec MacGillis
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, November 8, 2009 and
Monday, November 9, 2009

Why has a White House that talks so much about boosting employment steered clear of the most direct strategy that could keep Americans on the job? .... aside from a small summer employment program for young people, it has not sought to create jobs on the public payroll, something the country did in the 1930s and 1970s.

President Richard Nixon gave jobs programs another go in the doldrums of 1973-74 with the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA).

The program withered under President Ronald Reagan, who added prohibitions against public service employment (except for summer programs and natural disasters) that endure today. That the Obama administration shows little indication of lifting this taboo is a sign of how free-market tenets persist even when financial turmoil has called them into doubt, said John Russo, co-director of Youngstown State University's Center for Working-Class Studies.

As for direct job creation: there's a real nervousness about setting up anything that looks like a WPA-style jobs program. It's that reluctance that my piece is calling into question -- after all, is it really more politically damaging to be seen as doing a jobs program than to be facing double-digit unemployment?

.... we had direct job creation programs in place throughout the '70s, as my article recounts. It was called CETA, and it ramped up under Nixon in '73-'74 recession. Reagan ended the program, and implemented a new federal restriction against federal jobs programs, with exception for summer youth programs and national emergencies.

The Labor Department does have various job training programs in place, such as Job Corps. But the federal government is prohibited against doing direct jobs-program style hiring a ban that Reagan put in place and that the Democrats so far have balked at trying to lift.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2010/09/08/remarks-president-economy-parma-ohio

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2009/11/06/DI2009110603214.html

[Karmadillo]

76. Thank you for posting this. What a bizarre approach for a Democratic president to embrace.

nt

[Vanje]

125. Democratic president?

I do wonder.

[QC]

37. Not even Reagan himself could have said it better. n/t

[truedelphi]

40. Oh Fucking Yeah you create jobs.

If nine to thirty trillion bucks had not been "leaked" to the Bigger Financial Firms, through the Paulson/Bernanke/Geithner sleight of hand, and those Big Bucks passed on down to their executives, those poor people would be pounding the streets, resumes in hand.

You just cannot be bothered to create jobs for middle class workers HERE IN THE USA!

[Hydra]

119. + infinity!

The top dogs are benefiting from a very sweet deal type of socialism at all of our expense.

The rest of us have to make do with anything they didn't manage to steal this time around.

[Ganja Ninja]

43. I swear the Obama White House is channeling Joe Lieberman.

I'm just getting sick of them.

[Cali_Democrat]

44. WTF?

:banghead:

[libmom74]

49. New Third Way Dems are

only concerned with creating more wealth for the top 2%.

[closeupready]

55. Self-preservation. It's a basic instinct, doncha know.

:sarcasm:

[boston bean]

51. they suck! that's about all there is to say. THEY SUCK! nt

[Starry Messenger]

52. That's for damn sure.

And I love that people are trying to throw the Hail Mary pass of "White House and Congress" work together. Ha! The same people have been blaming the make-up of Congress for all of the shit-sandwiches we've been served for the last two years from the White House. :crazy:

[woo me with science]

56. K&R

[OHdem10]

57. Mc Connell and Kyl Talking Points. Obama, Obama, Obama

[mmonk]

61. No, they had rather kill them.

[Lorien]

74. Yeah, we know

:eyes:

[in_cog_ni_to]

75. Karmadillo DID NOT SELECTIVELY QUOTE THE ARTICLE! Here's the FIRST paragraph quoted:

As President Barack Obama once again pivots to focus on economic growth, Press Secretary Jay Carney declared Thursday that "the White House doesn't create jobs."

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/white-house-we-dont-create-jobs-2011-8#ixzz1U5cCo1em

Read the damn article! The very first paragraph is EXACTLY what Karmadilla posted!

[emulatorloo]

DU rule = Quote only 4 paragraphs. But they don't have to be consecutive

Karmadillo chose not to include the full quote which is also contained in the article.

[in_cog_ni_to]

82. He quoted the first four paragraphs in their entirety...that IS NOT "selective quoting." It's

quoting 4 paragraphs you want to post. Selective quoting would be if he quoted just a part of a paragraph...which he did not do.

[hack89]

91. OK - so it is deceptive posting

deliberately leaving out the whole quote in order to make smear the president.

[in_cog_ni_to]

97. No. That's not true either. He quoted the first paragraph in its entirety. That is not deceptive. nt

[hack89]

101. You are missing the point - he deceived through omission

look at the title of the OP then look at the entire quote he left out. It is clear he has an agenda to push - unfortunately a true reading of the entire article shows that it does not in fact support his agenda. Was he simply lazy and didn't read past the first four paragraphs? Or what?

[Karmadillo]

121. You are missing the point--you are smearing through commission.

The article, in fact, supports the OP title chosen by Business Insider. The paragraphs I didn't quote, about tax cuts and trade agreements, make that clear. Why aren't any of the critics of the OP title complaining I didn't include the administration's advocacy of trade agreements as job creators?

[StarsInHerHair]

132. because the type seems to get stuck on a button, they ignore the big picture

& get all caught up in 1 or 2 details

[emulatorloo]

79. DU rule = Quote only 4 paragraphs. But they don't have to be consecutive

Karmadillo chose not to include the full quote which is also contained in the article.

[amborin]

78. more republican talking points from the White House

[Bluerthanblue]

87. how is this a republican talking point?

what white house creates jobs on its own? Without congress and the rest of government???

[amborin]

88. it's rethugs who say WH should not steer job creation

and now the WH echoes that talking point

we have needed and now even more desperately need a massive WH job creation program...

[Bluerthanblue]

92. we DO need a government backed Job Creation program-

I completely agree with you! But it can't be done without congress, and if it comes only from the white house alone- it is guaranteed to fail.

The comment made in the Miller article was only a partial comment.

Is this so difficult to understand?

[amborin]

94. have you ever heard of 'leadership', from the White House?

taking the lead, by announcing the massive, desperate need for a gov't backed jobs program, and shaping the national discourse instead of acquiescing to rethugs?

instead of talking about deficits and debts ( a totally manufactured crisis) and austerity, the WH should be taking the LEAD and telling Americans we currently need massive job creation, etc........

must all be left to others, with merely a rubber-stamping figurehead presidency?

[emulatorloo]

102. Please note: "Obama Midwest Bus Tour To Focus On Jobs, Economy"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/03/obama-midwest-bus-tour-jobs-economy_n_917111.html

Aug 3, 2011

<SNIP>

The White House on Wednesday confirmed plans for the trip the week of Aug. 15 but didn't release details.

As he signed the compromise legislation raising the U.S. debt ceiling, Obama complained that Washington has been "absorbed" by the crisis of a looming default, but American families are still facing a "quiet crisis" of persistently high unemployment. He promised to make job-creating measures his top priority when Congress returns from vacation -- including pending trade deals, extending payroll tax cuts and overhauling patent laws.

"Growing the economy isn’t just about cutting spending, it is not about rolling back regulations that protect our air and water and keep people safe. That is not how we are going to get past this recession. We are going to have to do more than that," Obama said on Tuesday after the Senate approved the deal to raise the debt ceiling.

"There already is a quiet crisis going on in the lives of a lot of families and a lot communities all across the country. They are looking for work and they have been for a while ... that ought to compel Washington to cooperate, that ought to compel Washington to compromise and that ought to compel Washington to act."

<SNIP>

It will be interesting to see what he proposes on this tour. It is obviously in the mold of town halls, taking it directly to the people rather than dealing with the media filter.

[Karmadillo]

124. Please note:"trade deals, extending payroll tax cuts and overhauling patent laws." Woohoo!

nt

[StarsInHerHair]

133. FDR issued an Executive Order to raise taxes on the wealthy-Congress said

no, FDR again issued an Ex. Order to raise taxes on the wealthy Congress-again said no.

FDR again issued an Executive Order to raise taxes on the wealthy & Congress said yes.

[indurancevile]

81. what a liar.

[Bluerthanblue]

93. who? Miller? well while it may not be a lie, it

is deceptive. Twisting peoples words by leaving off more than half of what someone says can drastically change its meaning.

[bvar22]

85. not THIS White House. Thats for SURE.

..And MORE "Free Trade" for EVERYBODY!!!!
Weeeeeeeeeeee! Party ON (for the Top 2%).
:party:


If you haven't figured out WHO this White House works for by now,
stop trying.
You'll NEVER get it.

[area51]

143. +1

Your quote should be on the front page of this website.

If you haven't figured out WHO this White House works for by now, stop trying.
You'll NEVER get it.

[NotThisTime]

95. How very Republican of them....

[Jakes Progress]

100. Second part of quote even more disgusting.

"creates policies that allow for greater job creation"

We've seen those policies. Tax cuts for corporations. Tax cuts for the wealthy. Less regulation. More money for big companies.

How about creating jobs. Is the administration so backward and ignorant that it can't look at history or come up with something better than trickle-down reaganomics to help the country? If so, we are truly screwed.

[Karmadillo]

103. K&R this comment. Amazing the Defenders keep highlighting it.

nt

[Name removed]

106. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Karmadillo]

109. Here's the quote. Explain how it was "dishonestly" interpreted.

Do you really want to stand by your claim Carney's reference to tax cuts has nothing to do with job creation?

http://www.businessinsider.com/white-house-we-dont-create-jobs-2011-8

<edit>

Carney listed legislative priorities the president believes will create jobs, including an infrastructure bank, the passage of free trade agreements, and tax cuts. But he would not say what was being done to further those goals while Congress takes a month-long vacation

more...

[phleshdef]

110. Its dishonestly interpreted because the part regarding the White House and Congress...

...had absolutely no connection to the part where he cited some policies that the President has mentioned. You are running all that together to craft a narrative. Your OP was insinuating that he was saying the White House literally has nothing to do with creating jobs. And that isn't what he said, whatsoever, at all. Thats dishonest on your part.

As far as his reference to tax cuts go, he is talking about the payroll tax cut. I believe the payroll tax cut does in fact have a stimulative effect because its aimed at lower and middle income people. I also believe the way its structured is a bad idea for the long term, because it would underfund Social Security, so I don't think it should be extended any longer than unemployment stays really high. But anything that puts extra money into the pockets of lower and middle income people right now is going to offer some kind of benefit because those are the people that need to have money to spend in order to get the economy moving again. There is absolutely nothing in that idea that is inconsistent with progressive economic thought. Nothing.

[Karmadillo]

114. See post #36 for context. The "insinuations" of the OP seem extremely accurate.

nt

[bvar22]

148. The purpose of the "Payroll Tax Holiday" is to marginalize funding for Social security,

and to directly connect Social security to the General Fund and The (OMG) Deficit,
legitimizing the Republican claims that Social Security is part of The (OMG) Deficit.

The Payroll Tax Holiday Directly Links Social Security to The Deficit

[Jakes Progress]

134. Did you just call me a liar?

"Purposefully dishonest"

How about an apology. Then we can discuss your ignoring the point of my post.

[Hawkowl]

142. Republican Dogma

It is simply Herbert Hoover all over again. It is absolutely fucking amazing!

What we need is EXACTLY for the Whitehouse to create jobs! Direct employment by the government because the private sector refuses to invest their trillions of dollars and pay workers.

His presidency is over. The economy will crash like it hasn't in over 100 years-- just in time for November 2012.

[GSLevel9]

115. lmao... he's SOOOO full of it.

their job is to provide a CLIMATE for a healthy economy. Dumbfucks.

[TK421]

126. It's really getting desperate in here, isn't it?

:crazy:

[Bluebear]

127. Yes.

[Blue-Jay]

135. That could be taken two ways.

Oddly enough, I agree with both interpretations.

[Safetykitten]

128. Well then we don't have to worry as he has done nothing.

[workinclasszero]

136. "We Don't Create Jobs"

No shit?

Thanks Captain Obvious! AKA President Obama!

[blkmusclmachine]

138. .

:hurts:

[EFerrari]

139. Memory Lane: 2008 Obama outlines job-creation plan

President-elect Barack Obama offered an outline of his economic recovery plan Saturday, and jobs were the top priority.

American workers will rebuild the nation's roads and bridges, modernize its schools and create more sources of alternative energy, Obama said in the weekly Democratic address, posted on his Web site.

"The plan will mean 2.5 million more jobs" by 2011, Obama said. His Web site clarified that the plan would "save or create" that many jobs.

"These aren't just steps to pull ourselves out of this immediate crisis," he said. "These are the long-term investments in our economic future that have been ignored for far too long."

http://articles.cnn.com/2008-11-22/politics/obama.economy_1_job-creation-economic-recovery-plan-jobs-next-year?_s=PM:POLITICS

[Karmadillo]

141. Wow. How depressing. We had such an opportunity & we traded it in for what? Bailouts? Austerity?

You look at how bad things are in terms of environment and resources and politics and you wonder if we'll ever have such a chance again.

[bvar22]

147. I hope our President at least got a bag of Magic Beans in this deal.

*

[Name removed]

140. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JVS]

144. This administration needs to stop writing the ads for the republicans.

[Liberal Fiscal Hawk]

146. Someone's forgotten the Full Employment and Balanced Growth Act

The government can and should create jobs. Our failing infrastructure isn't going to fix itself, and we have 25 million people out there looking for work. Our economic recovery won't begin in earnest until those people are able to find jobs and begin buying things, and repairing and constructing new infrastructure lays the foundation for future growth. It's a win-win.

[ProfessionalLeftist]

149. Well, it should. If the private sector isn't then the gov't should

If the gov't is not, then we need new gov't.