Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
AP News | The Columbia Daily Tribune - Columbia, Missouri (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_GOVERNMENT_JOB_CREATOR?SITE=MOCOD&SECTION=HOME& TEMPLATE=DEFAULT - broken link)
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The same Republicans who insist that federal spending doesn't create jobs and should be cut in the face of staggering deficits are leading the charge against smaller military budgets because about a million defense jobs would be lost.
Then and now, Republicans fill the campaign airwaves, news releases and stump speeches with the argument that Democratic spending - and specifically President Barack Obama's $825 billion stimulus package in 2009 - doesn't create jobs. Just this August, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said they were wrong, estimating that in the second quarter of this year alone, the spending package increased the number of people employed by between 1 million and 2.9 million.
It's no surprise to say, with $700 billion ... you better be creating a lot of jobs," Pollin said.
The issue, however, is how many jobs.
A study that Pollin and Heidi Garrett-Peltier conducted in 2009 found that spending $1 billion on health care, education or clean energy, or cutting taxes, created more jobs across all pay ranges than spending the equivalent amount on the military. Investment in education generated about 29,100 jobs from $1 billion in spending compared with 19,600 jobs from health care, 17,100 from clean energy and 11,600 from the military, according to the analysis.
"Channeling funds into clean energy, health care and education in an effective way will therefore create significantly greater opportunities for decent employment throughout the U.S. economy than spending the same amount of funds with the military," the two wrote.
Pollin said Thursday that an updated study is forthcoming - and the conclusions are the same.
AP News | The Columbia Daily Tribune - Columbia, Missouri (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_GOVERNMENT_JOB_CREATOR?SITE=MOCOD&SECTION=HOME& TEMPLATE=DEFAULT - broken link)
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The same Republicans who insist that federal spending doesn't create jobs and should be cut in the face of staggering deficits are leading the charge against smaller military budgets because about a million defense jobs would be lost.
Then and now, Republicans fill the campaign airwaves, news releases and stump speeches with the argument that Democratic spending - and specifically President Barack Obama's $825 billion stimulus package in 2009 - doesn't create jobs. Just this August, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said they were wrong, estimating that in the second quarter of this year alone, the spending package increased the number of people employed by between 1 million and 2.9 million.
It's no surprise to say, with $700 billion ... you better be creating a lot of jobs," Pollin said.
The issue, however, is how many jobs.
A study that Pollin and Heidi Garrett-Peltier conducted in 2009 found that spending $1 billion on health care, education or clean energy, or cutting taxes, created more jobs across all pay ranges than spending the equivalent amount on the military. Investment in education generated about 29,100 jobs from $1 billion in spending compared with 19,600 jobs from health care, 17,100 from clean energy and 11,600 from the military, according to the analysis.
"Channeling funds into clean energy, health care and education in an effective way will therefore create significantly greater opportunities for decent employment throughout the U.S. economy than spending the same amount of funds with the military," the two wrote.
Pollin said Thursday that an updated study is forthcoming - and the conclusions are the same.
Facts. They don't let a small thing like real facts get in the way. They go by the old addage if you lie often enough people will start believing the lie.
Channeling funds into clean energy, health care and education in an effective way
That's precisely the problem. This Administration has NOT effectively channeled stimulus funds into clean energy, healthcare, OR education. If it had, we would not have had the Solyndra Debacle, Obamacare would not be in front of the Supreme Court, and a second stimulus (aka. American Jobs Act) would not be needed to preserve teacher jobs.
Leftist's seem to be having a REALLY hard time owning up to the failures of this Administration, so the message is to blame Republicans for pointing out these failures.
"Channeling funds into clean energy, health care and education in an effective way will therefore create significantly greater opportunities for decent employment throughout the U.S. economy than spending the same amount of funds with the military," the two wrote.
Pollin said Thursday that an updated study is forthcoming - and the conclusions are the same.
this is by far the most stupid thing ive heard to date. green energy and the tax breaks its giving is whats causing companies like GE to pay zero taxes.
yeah lets funnel more money into green energy (im not saying we dont need green energy) so more people can pay less taxes!!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
