To a Democrat or a Democrat In Drag (formerly known as RINO) there is no such thing as a job created or a job saved. Why? because it isn't in the United States Constitution. That's why. Where have these idiots been? Oh. Wait. They have been hiding amongst the thieves, crooks and liars pretending they know something about the USC but do not.
This article is just too much to deal with...if you are a democrat. Here's why.
[...] The Obama administration has taken some heat and mockery for using the nebulous and non-economic term of jobs being “saved or created” by the $787 billion stimulus program.
So it’s gotten rid of it.
In a little-noticed December 18, 2009 memo from Office of Management and Budget director Peter Orszag the Obama administration is changing the way stimulus jobs are counted.
The memo, first noted by ProPublica, says that those receiving stimulus funds no longer have to say whether a job has been saved or created.
“Instead, recipients will more easily and objectively report on jobs funded with Recovery Act dollars,” Orszag wrote. [...]
Isn't that all too special? Let's make it look like we are doing something that's good and if the numbers don't match up with reality, "they are just making more plans".
[...] But Rep. Darrell Issa of California, the top Republican on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, wrote to the chair of the Recovery Act Transparency and Accountability Board Earl Devaney saying that “the new guidance counts every jobs that is funded using stimulus money – even if it existed before the Recovery Act, and was not in any danger of being eliminated – as ‘created or saved.’ This definition ignores the plain meanings of the words ‘created’ and ‘saved’ and makes Recovery.gov’s ‘ ‘JOBS CREATED/SAVED’ label a falsehood, further eroding the confidence of the American people in their government.” [...]
Let it be known, ladies and gentlemen, we know what's going on and what's going on is no good - unless you are looking for a complete and total economic break down that the defeatorats created. It will help the "other stimulus".
Here's another "CHANGE" or at least a "game change" for you all:
Jackie Calmes / New York Times: Obama Weighs Fee to Recoup Bank Bailout and Cut Deficit
WASHINGTON — President Obama is likely to propose a fee on financial institutions to help reduce the federal deficit when he releases his budget plans in February, although the details remain unresolved, according to administration officials. [...]
Unresolved? How do you resolve something that has no resolution? How can this punk Obama decide to charge more, to make more, to make less and pay less? Does that make sense? Not to me it doesn't and it confused the hell out me just writing it. In my estimation, it would have been much better to let the failed and corrupted banks and financial institutions go broke and let the economy work itself out of a government run "thing".
Since the federal government has gotten involved, no matter when it was, in the financial institutions in this Nation, when was it any good and look at it now. Is it good or is it bad?
Maybe this is The Why Obama is phucking up here: “Top Bank Official” Covering Geithner’s Ass In New AIG Scandal. D'OH!
More at Memeorandum...
The Snooper Report.
Join us as we Take Our Country Back.
Sic vis pacem para bellum