Project Wonderful Banner

Sunday, September 27, 2009

Those damned Jobs

What's Mallard raving about today?

Jobs, Government.

Rather than dealing with the small portion which conforms to Mallard's pre-conceived ideology, let's look at what the article actually says:
The report, based on an analysis of federal jobs data, found that state and local governments steadily added jobs for eight months after the recession began in December 2007, with their employment peaking last August. State and local governments have since lost 55,000 jobs, but from the beginning of the recession through last month they gained a net of 110,000 jobs, the report found, in part because of the federal stimulus program.
A few observations:
  1. 110,000 jobs in 19 months. Whoop-dee-freaking-doo.
  2. 110,000 people still have jobs. Why? " part because of the federal stimulus program."
  3. Mallard would be happier is 110,000 more people were out of work?


HT said...

Quote mining: When your argument is is too limp to stand on its own, lie about what someone smarter than you said!

Ducky is Right said...

Dear Ducky,
7,000,000 > 110,000. By quite a large ratio.

Maybe if your precious private sector hadn't screwed the pooch like a misguided poodle at a furry convention, there wouldn't have been 7 million jobs lost.

exanonymous said...

The whole premise of the argument depends solely on the fact that all gov't created jobs rely and effect just the gov't.

Unfortunately, that premise is ruined by the simple fact that those employed spend more money than those not employed, regardless of type of employment. And most of this money will go into the private sectors.

And you'd think it would be more palatable to the neocons that these people employed were actually working (even if you maintain lazy gov't employees do a quarter of the work you do) as opposed to trying to eke out a living on food stamps.

Ducky is RIght said...

OKay, the stupid is too much for one response.

When? When has anyone, anywhere, EVER, said that the solution to a given economic problem is for everyone to work for the government?

Further; seriously? "Waaaah, liberals want EVERYONE to work for the government!"? That's your argument, a nonsensical absurdity? Seriously, why not just end your strip, "Supports the president's contentions that all children under the age of 13 are now 13. Also, underwear is to be changed every four hours. Underwear is to be worn on the outside, so we can check." Cause that's the exact same argument you're making, ducks.

And since when does the President have control over the actions of state and local governments?

Tog said...

"President's contention?" Funny, there's no asterisk by that.

Of course Tinsley/Mallard doesn't give a damn if 110,000 people are without jobs; he's a neocon and they're not him. His only concerns are: (1) using them for political purposes, and (2) worrying that his precious, precious tax-pennies might be contributing even slightly to their survival.

Remember, Tinsley, never talk about why we're in a recession in the first place. Just bitch and moan because, after less than a year after Obama took office, things are only just starting to turn around.

Hatefillment: When reading Tinsley's monumental stupidity day by day (that, too) finally makes one snap, and an anonymous Limbeck Buttlick gleefully shrieks that one is "hate-filled."

Hibryd said...

Wow, Davey, You must put a LOT of time into this blog. I mean, Tinsley supposedly does 80-90 hours of "research" every week and he keeps missing all these relevant facts! I can only assume you must be doing 90-100 hours of research a week in order to find all this information that he doesn't know.

Frank Stone said...

Does this count as a "contention that the solution ... is for everyone, eventually, to work for the government"?

Kip W said...

Dubya was captain of the ship of state for eight years. At the end of that time, he walked away whistling, leaving the thing sitting upside down in the middle of Rodeo Drive.

And now his pals are sneering that the new captain is going to have to spend OUR MONEY to get the thing towed and fixed up.

exanonymous said...

Today's Mallard Fillmore:

Short answer: Yes, it's easy because approximately 97% of them are invisible and very very quiet.

Long answer: No, it's not easy, because of the mad orgy they'll have to have to create the required number. Otherwise, they'll have to stick around for 68 years to do it at a population growth rate of 5% a year.

Tog said...

Also re Monday's MF:

(1) Who's been screeching and bawling about the Fairness Doctrine? Hint: even though Obama doesn't support its return, FOX News has claimed Obama wants to ram it down America's throat like a big...

(2) "Newsbusters," huh? Too bad the "couple of million protesters" myth has already been well mythbusted. When "truth to power" doesn't work, Tinsley knows to stick to The Big Lie.

(3) And of course Tinsley got his wee-wee equally bent out of shape when the "liberal" media took pains to undercount protesters against the war and occupation, carefully referring to counter-demonstrators as "patriotic." ...What? He didn't? Oh. Then he's a hypocritical asshole. (But we're well familiar with that particular truth.)

rewinn said...

If you chart the growth in government jobs since 1776, the trend is even more shocking!

In 1776, there were ZERO FEDERAL JOBS! it was all done by VOLUNTEERS!!!

Why can't we simply RETURN to the days of the Torey Aristocracy????


Wasn't it nice for ducky to remind us that this recession began on W's watch?

The chart in the "comic" says that government jobs increased as a straight line, which, as DaveyK noted, is simply a lie; two years ago they went up and then over a year ago, started heading down.

Rootbeer said...

Maybe the benevolent free-market entrepreneurs that "create jobs", and from whence all wealth and goodness trickles down, ought to step up their game.

It's an embarrassment that they are not able to compete with government's inept bureaucracies in terms of job creation.

Rootbeer said...

Can you blame Tinsley for not comprehending the difference in magnitude between 7,000,000 and 110,000?

Both numbers are way too high to show up on a breathalyzer, so to him they might as well not exist.