The OP criticized the President for not congratulating major league sports teams on their victories. He doesn't care about focus. It's just the attack du jour.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gee, anonymous seems to be having a hard time getting their facts straight.

The fact is Obama played more than 70 rounds of golf before introducing what HE called a “jobs bill” and announcing that his focus would be on jobs. Now, if you want to pretend that Obamacare was REALLY a jobs bill or that the ineffective “stimulus” bill was a jobs bill – go ahead, but just be aware that the your spin is contrary to the facts.

For the “anonymous” who cited the NY Times, really? Are you serious? The NY Times? They are less credible than Faux News.

It is striking how many people can be led to believe what they are told instead of what they see with their own eyes. Come on folks, wake up. Obama is the worst president Jimmy Carter. How can people not see that

Fine, you don't like NYT. Here http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/18/obama-jobs-speeches-idUSN1E77G18Z20110818

You can't rewrite history by posting and cross-posting the same lie over and over.

Of course Obama mentioned jobs in the past, but he did not focus to job creation until August 2011 -- after 70+ rounds of golf:


http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/61599.html

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/aug/02/news/la-pn-obama-debt-20110802

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2eca3d32-bf5a-11e0-898c-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1gQPpKP56

http://dailycaller.com/2011/08/02/obama-shifts-focus-to-jobs-and-taxes-away-from-debt-talks/

When the president took office, unemployment stood at 7.8%. It rose to 10.1% in April 2009, and now stands at 8.6%. The number of unemployed eclipsed 13 million in March 2009, and has remained above 13 million for 31 straight months. Unfortunately for the millions of Americans without jobs, some of whom were undoubtedly watching her try to pass off this statement as true, the average number of weeks it takes for them to find work is the highest its ever been.

I don't know this person is who is obsessed with the lie that the president "played 70 rounds of golf before turning his attention to jobs."

Setting aside the obvious fact that the setup is bogus (he played golf on Sundays? so what?!?), allow me to just bring your attention this February 2009 news release from the White House about the stimulus:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/white-house-releases-state-state-numbers-american-recovery-and-reinvestment-act-sav

First two sentences:

"WASHINGTON, D.C. – The White House today released state-specific details on the local impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act is a nationwide effort to create jobs, jumpstart growth and transform our economy to compete in the 21st century"

Other searches in the first weeks of his administration are about trying to create jobs.

So, the OR is a loon.

Anonymous wrote:obama's spastic golf game is...as funny as his bowling a 36, throwing like a girl and getting stitches playing basketball.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9m3GyDh6M8


it's funny....let him pretend to play golf...why the fuss?

Yeah, I'd hate to see him playing like Boehner. Working hard, or hardly working?

obama's spastic golf game is...as funny as his bowling a 36, throwing like a girl and getting stitches playing basketball.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9m3GyDh6M8


it's funny....let him pretend to play golf...why the fuss?

Anonymous wrote:
I think you are confusing incidental job creation with focusing on job creation. The links above show that Obama began "focusing" on job creation in August 2011. Before that he focused on the stimulus, Obamacare, debt and his golf game. You may want to call the stimulus a jobs bill, but the fact remains that the White House announced in was focusing on jobs in August 2011.

If you are suggesting that a stimulus bill which was measured in terms of "jobs created and saved" had job creation as only an "incidental" impact, you are ignoring reality.

I previously asked you what you believed to have been the purpose of the stimulus bill. You responded with data showing that jobs had been created by that bill. Now, you are accusing me of confusion. So, I would like to pose the question again. Please explain in a few short sentences, no reason to copy and paste from other websites or your crazy uncle's latest chain email, what you believe to have been the purpose of the stimulus bill.

Editing to add: Here is how the Wall Street Journal reported on the signing of the stimulus bill:

"Mr. Obama touted the measure's investments in health care, infrastructure, energy, education and, most importantly, job creation, as well as a variety of tax cuts. "

"The White House also distributed information showing projected job growth by state and congressional district."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123487951033799545.html

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
So where did most of the money REALLY go to? Put it this way -- the unions aren't complaining. Public employee unions had their pensions bailed out by Obama so they can retire at age 50.

So, you agree that the stimulus bill created jobs, albeit at a very high cost.

Your numbers are a bit out of date. If you go to recovery.gov right now, you will see the following figures:

$733.2B paid out

Tax Benefits: $300.1B
Contracts, Grants, and Loans: $217.7B
Entitlements: $215.4B

While tax cuts are a very poor stimulus method, not all of the tax benefits were cuts. There was $35.4 billion in tax incentives to hire employees and $9.6 billion to assist manufacturing.

But, the bottom line for you -- and for me as well -- is that while the stimulus bill was not as effective as it might have been, it still created jobs. You are hung up on the fact that it was not called a jobs bill, yet the government has consistently measured it in terms of "jobs saved and created." Obviously, such a measure would not be used for something that was not expected to positively impact jobs.

At any rate, I believe the data you present puts to rest any claim that Obama did not focus on jobs until August 2011.

I think you are confusing incidental job creation with focusing on job creation. The links above show that Obama began "focusing" on job creation in August 2011. Before that he focused on the stimulus, Obamacare, debt and his golf game. You may want to call the stimulus a jobs bill, but the fact remains that the White House announced in was focusing on jobs in August 2011.

Anonymous wrote:
So where did most of the money REALLY go to? Put it this way -- the unions aren't complaining. Public employee unions had their pensions bailed out by Obama so they can retire at age 50.

So, you agree that the stimulus bill created jobs, albeit at a very high cost.

Your numbers are a bit out of date. If you go to recovery.gov right now, you will see the following figures:

$733.2B paid out

Tax Benefits: $300.1B
Contracts, Grants, and Loans: $217.7B
Entitlements: $215.4B

While tax cuts are a very poor stimulus method, not all of the tax benefits were cuts. There was $35.4 billion in tax incentives to hire employees and $9.6 billion to assist manufacturing.

But, the bottom line for you -- and for me as well -- is that while the stimulus bill was not as effective as it might have been, it still created jobs. You are hung up on the fact that it was not called a jobs bill, yet the government has consistently measured it in terms of "jobs saved and created." Obviously, such a measure would not be used for something that was not expected to positively impact jobs.

At any rate, I believe the data you present puts to rest any claim that Obama did not focus on jobs until August 2011.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Of course Obama mentioned jobs in the past, but he did not focus to job creation until August 2011 -- after 70+ rounds of golf:

Can you please tell me what you believe to have been the purpose of the stimulus bill?

The stimulus package authorized 787 billion dollars. According to the official website (Recovery.gov) there are three categories of "stimulus." Citing amounts (of the first $565 billion ) spent, they are:


1.$243.4 billion in tax cuts.


2.$154.5 billion in contracts, grants, and loans. This is what we actually think of as a stimulus, construction and research projects.


3.$166.8 billion in entitlements. This is mostly money to the states to help with unemployment insurance.



Estimates of jobs "saved and created" by the package range from 800,000 to 2.4 million (both from the Congressional Budget Office), with other estimates at 1.25 million (IHS/Global Insight), 1.06 million (Macroeconomic Advisors), and 1.59 million (Moody's).

Using Moody's estimate (high middle, and independent) and round it off to 1.6 million jobs "saved and created."

That's $353,125 per job.

So where did most of the money REALLY go to? Put it this way -- the unions aren't complaining. Public employee unions had their pensions bailed out by Obama so they can retire at age 50.

It's an issue because obama is an athletic spaz. He bowls a 36! He wears mom jeans and throws a baseball like a girl. His golf swing is so hilarious... He won't allow it to be filmed and shown publically. He gets stitches playing "basketball" LOL

Anonymous wrote:
Of course Obama mentioned jobs in the past, but he did not focus to job creation until August 2011 -- after 70+ rounds of golf:

Can you please tell me what you believe to have been the purpose of the stimulus bill?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gee, anonymous seems to be having a hard time getting their facts straight.

The fact is Obama played more than 70 rounds of golf before introducing what HE called a “jobs bill” and announcing that his focus would be on jobs. Now, if you want to pretend that Obamacare was REALLY a jobs bill or that the ineffective “stimulus” bill was a jobs bill – go ahead, but just be aware that the your spin is contrary to the facts.

For the “anonymous” who cited the NY Times, really? Are you serious? The NY Times? They are less credible than Faux News.

It is striking how many people can be led to believe what they are told instead of what they see with their own eyes. Come on folks, wake up. Obama is the worst president Jimmy Carter. How can people not see that

Fine, you don't like NYT. Here http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/18/obama-jobs-speeches-idUSN1E77G18Z20110818

You can't rewrite history by posting and cross-posting the same lie over and over.

Of course Obama mentioned jobs in the past, but he did not focus to job creation until August 2011 -- after 70+ rounds of golf:


http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/61599.html

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/aug/02/news/la-pn-obama-debt-20110802

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2eca3d32-bf5a-11e0-898c-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1gQPpKP56

http://dailycaller.com/2011/08/02/obama-shifts-focus-to-jobs-and-taxes-away-from-debt-talks/

When the president took office, unemployment stood at 7.8%. It rose to 10.1% in April 2009, and now stands at 8.6%. The number of unemployed eclipsed 13 million in March 2009, and has remained above 13 million for 31 straight months. Unfortunately for the millions of Americans without jobs, some of whom were undoubtedly watching her try to pass off this statement as true, the average number of weeks it takes for them to find work is the highest its ever been.

Anonymous wrote:
Hmmmm .. So the dotcom bust and 9-11 are a "royal flush" -- now THAT'S an interesting take. Even so, I don't think Bush was a good President and I didn't vote for him.

Yes, compared to the near collapse of the entire global financial industry that Obama received as a welcoming gift, the dot com bust was a royal flush. Bush did not inherit 9-11. It happened on his watch after he ignored warnings from his advisors.

What makes you think that Hillary would have done any better? That's simply looking at things through rose-colored glasses. Obama's biggest flaw has been his willingness to hire Clinton's advisors. Hillary would have hired exactly the same people, or even worse. The entire Democratic leadership is beholden to Wall Street. Hillary worst then most. It's not simply a problem of individuals, but an institutional one.

Thank you JSteele: well said.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Obama is the worst president Jimmy Carter. How can people not see that

Bush was dealt a royal flush but somehow managed to lose both his pants and shirt (or more accurately, our pants and shirt). Obama was dealt a very weak hand, has made a series of bad bets and proved to be completely unable to bluff. But, despite his errors, he has not even come close to wrecking things as badly as Bush.

Hmmmm .. So the dotcom bust and 9-11 are a "royal flush" -- now THAT'S an interesting take. Even so, I don't think Bush was a good President and I didn't vote for him.

I voted for Obama and can't begin to describe how disappointed I am. He is definitely one of the worst. Give me Hillary.

Anonymous wrote:Gee, anonymous seems to be having a hard time getting their facts straight.

The fact is Obama played more than 70 rounds of golf before introducing what HE called a “jobs bill” and announcing that his focus would be on jobs. Now, if you want to pretend that Obamacare was REALLY a jobs bill or that the ineffective “stimulus” bill was a jobs bill – go ahead, but just be aware that the your spin is contrary to the facts.

For the “anonymous” who cited the NY Times, really? Are you serious? The NY Times? They are less credible than Faux News.

It is striking how many people can be led to believe what they are told instead of what they see with their own eyes. Come on folks, wake up. Obama is the worst president Jimmy Carter. How can people not see that

Fine, you don't like NYT. Here http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/18/obama-jobs-speeches-idUSN1E77G18Z20110818

You can't rewrite history by posting and cross-posting the same lie over and over.