STIMULUS WATCH: Construction drives up new jobs - Yahoo! News


I cant wait to see how the different sides interpret the data and the assumptions going forward

So how do you interpret this data since you obviously felt it held some importance? Otherwise, you wouldn't have posted it.

I would say that most of the jobs appear temporary, and what they are doing has limited value and utility. It was fun being in Massachusetts 2 weeks ago and having all the new unnecessary highway signs that the stimulus bill had paid for pointed out. For example, Massachusetts' highways now have .1 mile markers strewn about, something that might have been useful back before EVERY cell phone had to have a GPS locator for 911 calls, but today, not so much.

Still not sure where money is going around here, other than some of the education dollars that went to hiring new math tutors for at-risk kids rather than saving some of the teacher positions that got cut. Do they count those as "new jobs", or since other positions had to be cut at the same time is it a net loss?

I found some of the assumptions Flasch was referring to in his post.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Let-the-Sunshine-In/

I think it's a fool's errand to try to tally jobs, but from what I've read there's pretty solid agreement that the stimulus added a couple points of GDP growth last quarter, not enough to see growth, but at least we weren't declining.

As for jobs being temporary, that's the goal. A well designed stimulus will create jobs temporarily to try to boost demand until the economy picks up and creates a more permanent demand. It would work even better if the group of moderates hadn't insisted it be not so big, full of non-stimulative tax cuts, and devoid of much direct aid to states, but at least they made David Broder happy.

IMO, this might be because Republicans tend to be more dogmatic about their party (especially lately) whereas most Democrats have come to see their party as a "Big Tent" with both its benefits & drawbacks.

Yeah, I think that it is harder to pin down a typical Dem, so it is harder to find a DINO. You might have a lower-income, religious, homophobic black construction worker in a union in Cleveland and a rich athiest white gay environmentalist in San Francisco. Both of those people are "typical" Democrats, but they have very little to do with each other and would disagree on a lot of major policy issues and probably don't even really like each other. But you can't say who is and is not the DINO.

Yeah, but look at who both parties got to run for President. Neither was a crazy extremist.

When both Baucus and Grayson can be in the same party, what would it take to be "in name only"?

Yes, and Bush was to the left of Hitler. What's the point? Isn't it obvious we're discussing this country and not parties outside? To be blunt, who gives a flying fuck about modern Europeans social democratic parties?

Yeah, and you're to the left of Jesse Ewiak. ;)

This.

Left and Right are relative positions which are society determined, not some objective measurements.

That's mean. You shouldn't say that about Jesse...I mean Steve.

I agree with you that Left and Right are relative measurements, but I also agree with Steve's point about how the centerline has shifted rightward over the past 30-40 years.

To me, that's where a comparison against the European left-right scale is interesting but not much more useful than that. It's my impression that their relative scale has stayed fairly static over the same timeframe (with shifts back and forth during that period of course). Politicians on the right there today would be centrist/leaning left on the American scale.

But again, it's more just an interesting observation rather than something useful for American politics today.

Really? Progress on race relations, gay marriage, equal rights, environmental issues, consumer protections, reduced censorship... And we've moved RIGHT? One reason you have such a vocal right-wing right now is the movement left.

To be fair to Jesse I think he was speaking economically.

Let's go with "changes in" rather than "progress". Otherwise there's a whole other argument to be had & this thread has enough subplots as it is ;)

you know my opinion of the Stimulus Bill as I know yours...hence my statement that it'll be spun both ways. Which one is truth? Doesnt matter really.

It may be fluff compared to the other stuff talked about in this thread, but I really hope Obama pardons Jack Johnson. Long overdue.

Sen. John McCain, Rep. Peter King press President Obama to posthumously pardon Jack Johnson - ESPN

Amen.

From CNN.com

Stimulus gaffe spurs jobs reality check - Oct. 16, 2009

Aren't they talking of another one?

what do you mean?

I was just posting an applicable article to the thread. Whether its interpreted beyond that is up to ya'll for now since Im going to bed.

I was asking a question. I thought I heard that they are looking at another plan.

Sports analogy...

Unemployment is up hundreds and hundreds of thousands but our report that said we saved 30K jobs was wrong by 5-10K...

The Cardinals trade Albert Pujols (.327, 50 HR ) for Nick Johnson (.290, 8 HR) .... You don't like that trade? But we forgot to publish we also got Geovany Soto!!! (.215 10 HR's)

Isn't unemployment all bullshit anyway? I mean they stop tracking you after a year and don't count if you're just taking a part-time job to get by. I know a lot of people who had their hours cut back a lot.

oh, well for me the unemployment # and 'real' unemployment are a gap that makes me shake my head and also causes my disbelief in the stock market's rise...

I do NOT agree that this time it is as lagging as it has been in the past (albeit still lagging). I've been wrong thus far in correlating the markets move to this philosophy but I believe that gap is much smaller this time than in the past. Top line numbers for these companies show they only created $ through cuts and rarely have beaten expectations without simply looking at cost cutting measures. And dont even get me started on the banks numbers. I dont see where the growth that the stock market IMO is predicting is going to come from. That all being said I have been wrong up until now so WTF do I know.

Certainly an interesting day on the airwaves yesterday regarding the administration attacks on Fox News that we discussed earlier in the thread. Rather than easing up, the administration officials have increased their attack on Fox on multiple networks. Here's Axelrod and Emanuel in their appearances.............

Axelrod, Emanuel Criticize Fox News: "It's Not Really News" (VIDEO)

Fox News covered it on their end...........

White House Escalates War on Fox News - Political News - FOXNews.com

And new footage where an administration official discusses their manipulation of information being given to media outlets.............

White House boasts: We 'control' news media

I'm not sure who decided this was a battle the administration wanted to wage, but it just seems like a waste of time given the more pressing matters at hand. I still can't see any positive outcome from an adminstration perspective. Passing some legislation would be far more impactful at this point.

I think it is a sign that the administration is under some intense pressure. Why in the world would they take on any news outlet? All it does is give greater credibility to that outfit and their message.

Youre right the only positive thing was the Fox News Editor admitting what he admitted (which is probably true of most of the crappy news organizations out there)...at least Fox admitted it.

Again, do you even read the WorldNetDaily crap you post on here? This is from a conference IN JANUARY talking about "President Obama's presidential campaign."

I'm not sure that it gives them greater credibility per se, but it definitely gives them a larger audience and only further inflames the situation. Fox News has got to be loving the fact that they were the focus of attention on every Sunday morning news program and even some of the 24/7 news outlets. It's just a badly misjudged move by the Obama administration to think that this hurts Fox News in any way.

I read and listened to it. Your a very naive individual if you think that this tactic suddenly ceased upon inaguration.

Every administration tries to control their message. Why do you think Bush refused every interview request from the NYT for eight years? There's not much news in "White House press shop tries to control message".

Well, la de fucking da, that's certainly not the disingenuous way you presented it.

I would think that the obvious indications that it has continued would be pretty obvious, whether you agree or disagree with the methods.

LOL - I gotta agree with Ronnie here (and keep in mind he's nominally on your side). You can't post an article from January discussing the presidential campaign and claim it's "new footage" and defend it by saying "well obviously it's continued."

that's pretty...weak

+1

The article was posted yesterday (not January) with the footage. I'll be happy to agree with you if you've seen that footage posted previously. I personally have not.

I'd also note that Ronnie and I generally aren't on the same side. We disagree more often than we agree (not that there's anything wrong with that).

Best news I've heard all day.

I knew you'd agree. :D

Feds to issue new medical marijuana policy

Here is a move by the administration that even MBBF could get behind. Essentially, it's telling prosecutors to stop wasting time on medical marijuana in states where it is legal because there are much better ways to be using their resources.

I do like that. I'm a firm believer in not wasting our time on marijuana anymore. Sure, we should enforce any driving under the influence laws, but let people use it. Would save a ton of money on enforcement and wasted jail cells. I do think a certain percentage of users would move on to other drugs that should remain illegal, but marijuana in my eyes is no different than alcohol.

I should note that I've never even tried the stuff. Never appealed to me personally.

Essentialy they want all 50 states to have their own medical marijuana law. Then like in California people can just go buy weed. Then they have legalized it without actually legalizing it. Don't get me wrong it is a move that I completely support but why can't Obama (or Bush or Clinton or Bush I, etc...) just come out and say what MBBF said in his previous post?

"Soft on drugs," "ruining the nation's youth," etc. Political implications take precedence over doing what is sensible.

Online poker is a similar situation. The U.S. is losing a ton of money in tax revenue to other countries based on the UIGEA. It's ridiculous.

MJ was recently decriminalized in MA despite nearly *ALL* the establishment (police, DA, mayors, state legislators) urging the voters to vote no. We're about a year into it and it doesn't seem to have changed anything for the worse. Right after it took effect there were a few articles in the conservative Herald with police chiefs talking about how hard its made their lives, but it quieted down quickly.

In my mind, the only legitimate argument against it is that getting a true criminal for possession can make it easier (through PC) to get that guy for the really bad stuff, but I'm not sure that alone is worth the fight.

We need a new Senate Majority Leader before anything will really change on that.

Ughhh...I hate even thinking about this. It would even bring in money from overseas and create jobs in this country. Don't have to worry about crime or other unsightly blights that people complain about a casino bringing into their neighborhood.

Perhaps this is a problem in other parts of the country, but the casinos and areas around them in KC are actually pretty nice and don't have any real negative stigmas outside of people who just are completely opposed to gambling.

Well, that and the people that throw their life savings away in them, adding themselves to the public dole that the rest of us now have to support. But yes, I understand it is possible to gamble responsibly, and we have lots of people right here.

If they legalized the online poker sites, how many do you think would REALLY move to the US? With all the scandals in the ones that are out there now, how would moving to the US and closer to the authorities be a good thing for these folks? What makes you think they'd actually start paying any noticable taxes?

I agree, but I do know it's usually something that opponents of it complain about.

Players would rather play with a U.S. based poker site than one on some Caribbean island. I know I'd feel much safer about getting my money and playing a fair game.

Maybe that doesn't mean a lot of current ones move, but I guarantee you'll see a lot of investment in the U.S. to create new ones.

Wow, have to say that argument is a complete 180 from anything that makes any sense logically. (And I think you were throwing it out there more than you really believe it) How about the responsible are allowed to anything that has the potential to hurt nobody but themselves without the nanny state looking out for the irresponsible who can’t handle that activity? And even better how about the public dole not support those who throw their life savings away?

Current US law: Prostitution between consenting adults, gambling your own money, taking drugs with your own body all illegal. Using responsible peoples' money to help lazy people stay lazy, legal. (Bullshit reason given for all three. What about the children!?!?!)

Alternate: Activities between consenting adults legal. Churchgoers (society as a whole I guess but let’s not be naive about why these three things are illegal) decide morality of their own church members, not the government. You keep the money you earn and lazy pieces of shit get jobs.




I think most people would move instantly to a US site. I don't drink bootlegger whiskey or look at underground porn, why would I gamble in the Caribbean if an alternative existed in the US? And I have an easy solution for this if the US ever did legalize online gambling. Use the power of the government to crush the overseas players who don’t pay taxes and "convince" them to play at US sites.

The scandals are occurring due to a lack of regulation. That regulation would be required if there were sites based in the States. The major hang-up for many casual players has always been the lack of oversight and control of the sites. The industry would explode if U.S. sites became a reality. There are many casinos in the U.S. just chomping at the bit to provide sites that use cross-promotion to help their bottom line and their casino.

So you want Heroin legalised I presume then? ... after all it only affects the people taking it (no nasty second hand smoke like cigarettes) ....

Sure, why not? What is your reason for it being illegal? Morality? Not good enough for me. The children? Please. Because it is so hard for people to get right now due to the fact it is illegal? Where is the roll eyes smiley? Seriously why do you care what kind of drugs someone else does in the privacy of their own home? MBBF already stated what I also believe in... there are laws on the books for selling to a minor, possesion by a minor, operating a vechicle under the influence or for being disorderly. Why make heroin (or cocaine, or meth, etc) any worse than alcohol?

If it were legal I wouldn't go do it. Is that all that is stopping you from trying it?

And thats just from a personal liberty standpoint. If you want political reasons than explain to me with a straight face how anyone can debate the US government's side on the war on drugs?

It's funny you mention heroin. Heroin is actually in and of itself not that bad for you. It doesn't destroy the body like other drugs or pose any serious risks when taken responsibly. It's much easier on the body than smoking a cigarretes, drinking a beer, or snorting cocaine. In fact, it was used for many years as a pain killer that didn't harm the body.

Almost all the negative aspects to one's health come from the fact that it's illegal. Bad cuts, dirty needles, and mixing it with alcohol or other drugs are what get you most of the deaths. The fact that it's illegal causes it to be more difficult to obtain and more desperation by the user to get it. I would bet that if alcohol or cigarettes were legal, we'd have a lot of more issues with addicts causing trouble than we do today.

Heroin is still highly addictive and your can build up a tolerance to it quickly. The same can be said for alcohol though. You can take too much and slow your breathing down too much (just as I could pop too much Aspirin or drink too much Vodka).

I'm not saying that it should be legal, just that a lot of the problems you see with heroin users are caused by the fact that it is illegal. That if you had to take the choice of doing a lot of cocaine or a lot of heroin, you'd be much safer choosing heroin.

Edit: And no I've never taken Heroin and never intend to do so.

I'm assuming the answer to this is because it's "street modified"? If it were pure heroin you would take part?

EDIT: Not trying to play "gotcha" btw...just wondering.

No, because it's highly addictive and an expensive habit to have.

I didn't mean for it to come out that it was a good thing to do. I was just pointing out that from a pure physical standpoint, heroin doesn't really have any negative impact on the body. Cocaine will screw up your heart, smoking your lungs, and alcohol your liver, but Heroin doesn't screw up anything on its own.

I know very little about heroin, but can't you overdose on it and can't that overdose kill you?

Yes, but then you just become a zombie and feast upon the living.

Ah, well that's okay then. Can heroinzombies at least lose their driver's license?

Well, that's a overgeneralized version of what can happen.


The supression of heart and lung function is a major issue. The constant use of even clean needles can also led to cardiovascular issues along with the possibility of foreign bodies entering the bloodstream through the resulting needle injection site.

It is rare to die from a strictly heroin overdose. Those that do die are mixing it with other drugs or alcohol, which is technically not an overdose (although the media and such call it one).

The heart and lung supression can happen with just about any drug out there in high enough doses. You can get the same effect from overdosing on Aspirin.

And the needle issue is not from the heroin. It's from the injecting of it into the body using needles. The heroin is not causing those issues which is all that I'm pointing out.

In related news, it's not the lighting of a cigarette that can kill you. It's the actual inhalation of the smoke that's the problem.

The smoke is part of the product though in a way. I don't think you can make that comparision.

I'm strictly talking the chemical properties of the drug. Not the needles and not how it works with other drugs. When you compare what heroin does to the body physically, it is much safer than many OTC drugs and widely prescribed ones as well.

This whole Fox News thing just keeps getting bigger. Booting them from the White House coverage pool as administration officials are suggesting would be unprecedented.

White House Cites Opinion Shows as Basis for Fox News Complaints - Political News - FOXNews.com

I too however agree that opinion shows and News should not be mixed. Pick one and that goes to ALL media outlets.

Would that include scrapping the opinion pages/editorials from newspapers too?

No. If a TV opinion show on a News channel had maybe a disclaimer at the top on it like the Editorial or Opinion page does I think I might be alright with that.

It's really a pretty new idea that news organizations aren't supposed to have opinions.

Do we really need to be saved from ourselves that badly? You don't think Americans are capable, by and large, of figuring out the difference between a news show and an opinion show?

Couric does editorials on the CBS Evening News, doesn't she? That's a real question btw... I never watch her, but I hear her commentaries run on WTOP here in the D.C. area.

The White House is complaining about Fox's 5 p.m. and 9 p.m. shows, but they gave Ed Schultz (who's now on MSNBC at 6 p.m.) a front row seat to a prime time news conference. This isn't about the White House trying to hold the media to a high standard or to differentiate between news and opinion. This is the White House targeting the most watched news network in the United States because the administration doesn't like what Fox has to say, and I think it's a political misstep for the administration.

honestly - no i don't think they can

If that's the case, I officially call for an end to universal sufferage. If someone can't tell the difference, they don't get to vote. :)

Editorial pages are usually clearly noted as editorials.

The O'Reilly, Hannitty, Beck stuff is what it is, pundits who will say and do what they have to for ratings. I don't have a problem with that as I hope a lot of people can figure out that it's not real news. Fox is right on this issue that thoese are not to be considered part of the news team. Obama has no right to criticize those shows unless he's going to criticize MSNBC and CNN for doing the same.

My issue would be with the news side. Carl Cameron is the Chief White House Correspondent. His wife worked in the campaign to elect George Bush and had a history of fabricating quotes from Democrats. You have people like Karl Rove who are called "political analyst" or a blanket "contributor". Guys like Griff Jenkins who is acting as a journalist on scene. You have a history of dubious mistakes in reporting when it comes to Republican scandals (odd how they always make the mistake of listing them as a Democrat).

But what might be worse than those is creating news. The producer who riled up the crowd at tea party rallies to make it look like it was more active. The election day Black Panther story that was made to seem like a coup was taking place. The embelishment of numbers and facts to make a story or event look bigger than it was (or the reverse).

I think you can make the case these days that no Cable News network really passes as "news" these days. Unless knowing what Jon & Kate had for lunch is "news". Or telling me what homeboi4384 thinks of some story on Twitter is "news" (thanks CNN!). But I don't think there is anything wrong with saying that Fox News isn't a news source. It has elements of one, but probably falls somewhere in the middle of news and entertainment. When you look at the shows that bring in its ratings, it is probably closer to entertainment.

Is there any way to extricate opinion from news, and has there ever been?

Probably not. In any reporting, there has to be some editorial discretion.

Take a football game which not many people would look at as something that can have bias. A writer needs to use his discretion to determine what quotes are most important, what plays were most meaningful, and what stats stood out.

I think it's always in shades of grey. My biggest issue is when stories are made to be bigger than they are (swine flu) or when the media is simply creating a story.

You must have access to invisible quotes. I can't find anything in that story where an admin official suggests booting Fox from the coverage pool.

I don't have a problem with the mixing of news and opinion, but I also don't have a problem with calling it out for what it is. The problem with today's brand of opinion shows, not just those on Fox, is that they purposefully are a mix of both, but prefer to hide behind the safety of saying they're just opinion. Olberman, Maddow, Hannity, Beck, etc. like to provide news and certainly like to be seen as the arbiters of truth, but when called out they like to hide behind the curtain of opinion.

Works for me!

All right, to take your complaints in order: If you're going to be upset with Fox News calling Karl Rove a "political analyst", then I think you'd be more upset with ABC News having George Stephanpolous anchoring "This Week". People move from the political side to the news side all the time, just like former athletes have a tendency to pop up as analysts on ESPN. You may not like that it happens, but it's hardly like Fox News is the only one who does it.

I really don't watch Fox News enough to get the Griff Jenkins comment.. I see from Wikipedia that he's a "television and radio personality who is a producer for Fox News Channel." Carl Cameron being married to a partisan political operative isn't that unusual for D.C. Howard Kurtz of CNN's Reliable Sources is married to a Republican political operative. Christiane Amanpour is married to Obama advisor James Rubin. Going outside of marriage, it would not be unusual at all to find reporters/editors/producers/hosts who are close friends with political figures, or people who work for campaigns.

As for making news bigger or smaller than what it really is, I think every news network is going to be guilty of that (remember Dan Rather's faked memos in 2004?). As you say, you can make the case that no cable news network is really "news" today. But if that is the case (and after the Balloon Boy fiasco, I'd be inclined to agree with you), then calling out Fox News isn't about holding the network to the same high standard of other networks. It's picking on the most watched news network for ideological reasons.

Let's not forget that CBS has a long history of making news up, including such tidbits as placing rockets on pickups to make sure they'd blow up on camera, to Dan Rather spreading around the anti-Bush forged docs.

And to go along with your first paragraph, NPR ran Franken for a long-time, who goes right along with the guys you mention, so let's ban NPR as well.

Or just read Cam's response and ignore mine...

Perhaps we need a new phrase for these types of shows. Edutainment?

BTW, I think Jon Stewart and (to a lesser extent) Stephen Colbert do the same thing, only they hide behind the curtain of "this is a comedy show!"

The truck thing was NBC. What do you mean by ran Franken? I don't think he ever had a show on NPR, did he?

Was Cameron the guy that filed the fake Kerry story or was that a different Fox reporter?

Well it is on Comedy Central.

I think having News in the name of the channel or show is the first gate to get through.

After that I think it probably is a slippery slope BUT I definitely think an hour long show of editorial commentary ought to have my banner at the top.

The problem with Fox is that it's set itself up as the opposition to Obama. They can do that, but they lose any veneer of objective news at that point. When the head of the network sees them as the Alamo, they become a political organization little different from the RNC or National Chamber of Commerce.

Every network has conflicts and poor journalistic practices to some degree, but what sets Fox apart is it's willingness to see itself as having a mission to defeat a political opponent.

And they're allowed to do it - the real story here is why the white house feels it has a role in this. Why are they suddenly the arbiter of what's news and what's not?

I know other networks do it and it sucks. I think the Stephanopolous situation is a little different as he's just hosting a show.

I'm more upset with the passing off of these people as impartial observers. They'll have a story about health care reform and bring in Karl Rove to give his analysis on the events of the day. Now you're just going to get the Republican talking points here which is fine, but it should be stated beforehand that this is the Republican view of the events, not a general view of what happened.

I agree that there are massive conflicts of interest. I don't think Kurtz is as big as he isn't really giving analysis on a topic and is a host of the show (it's a show about the media). Amanpour has one and I think it's fair to criticize that. I think should do their best to avoid situations where their reporters areI think news organizations reporting on issues that pose a conflict (I'm not sure if Amanpour is in that situation too much).

Cameron was the Chief White House correspondent. I just don't know how you can be impartial when your wife is literally employed by the guy you are interviewing. The Jenkins guy is just one of many. It isn't to knock him personally, it's just the use of partisian people as on-site reporters.

All networks do it but I do think Fox News does go farther on this than other outlets. I would also blame politicians for cherry-picking these interviews that they know are on their home turf.

CBS didn't fake the memos themselves, they just didn't authenticate them. It's still a good example. There were a lot of firings from the ordeal as well as careers ruined. It has forever tarnished Dan Rather.

But what happened with CBS is run-of-the-mill for these cable news outlets. They have a memo-gate almost daily. They "accidentally" put a D instead of an R during almost every major scandal. They let some loudmouth shoot off made up numbers and treat it as fact. No one is fired for these things. Rarely are people punished.

The Daily Show did a great piece mocking CNN for not once fact checking any of their guests over the course of a week. They let people just make up numbers on the air but then wanted to factcheck an SNL skit. But the Daily Show bit summed up what cable news is. Just a forum for people to voice opinions on the daily topics. That is why I can't consider any of those networks news. CBS fucked up by not authenticating that document, but these cable networks allow people to fling bullshit 24 hours a day with no punishment.

He filed a couple with fake quotes. One of them he ended up saying was an "internal joke" that wasn't meant to be published. That explanation didn't make sense.

I don't know how you can claim to be a news network and not immediately fire a reporter for fabricating a story or quotes.

But the shows are on Comedy Central. They aren't trying to be a news show. They aren't running ads claiming to have great reporting and digging for the truth. Half of the show is literally fake news. I just don't see how you can compare a show on these cable news outlets to the Daily Show.

I mean is Chris Rock on the same level as Sean Hannitty if he discusses current political events in his routine on HBO?

Of course they have a right to do it. Nobody is trying to close Fox, they're just getting called out for being at least as much of a political operation as a news operation. I don't think it's the best use of the admin's authority, but as I've said repeatedly, this sort of fight with a media outlet is pretty standard fare at least since Nixon.