It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

$111Million stimulus nets only 55 jobs

page: 1
6

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 05:25 PM
link   

$111Million stimulus nets only 55 jobs



More than a year after Congress approved $800 billion in stimulus funds, the Los Angeles City Controller has released a 40-page report on how the city spent its share, and the results are not living up to expectations.

"I'm disappointed that we've only created or retained 55 jobs after receiving $111 million," says Wendy Greuel, the city's controller. "With our local unemployment rate over 12% we need to do a better job cutting red tape and putting Angelenos back to work."

According to the audit, the Los Angeles Department of Public Works spent $70 million in stimulus funds and created 7 private sector jobs and saved 7 workers from layoffs. Taxpayer cost per job: $1.5 million.


www.foxnews.com...

comments:
OMG!!!! How wasteful can you get???
Only 55 jobs from $111 Million??

1 job at minimum wage yields app. $24K yr.
Where did the other 1.476 million go???

No wonder we are crumbling economically !!!
Bad decisions.




posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 05:49 PM
link   
Yeah, in my county $1.5 million went to a school for the mentally disabled to increase test scores. Not a single job was created. The people that attend this school live off the state for the rest of their lives so this really didn't stimulate the local economy either.

$2 million created a drug task force that has employed only 3 people.

You can see how the stimulus money has been wasted in your county by following this link:

www.recovery.gov...


edit on 17-9-2010 by Cobra5000 because: grammar



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 06:02 PM
link   
If a Republican was in office right now we would have LOST 55... MILLION jobs!!!

And that number is incorrect. Its the usual right winger propaganda numbers that arent even remotely correct or even in the same galaxy as the correct numbers.

Typical from the right.



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by boondock-saint
...Bad decisions.


No. Not 'bad decisions', but jobs for friends. Think about this for a minute....

You have friends in the "public sector", and their job needs a reason for its existence. So you create these funny little scenarios and throw money at them.

It happens all the time in the Public Sector. Jobs are created, new jobs are created and wierd and wonderful excuses are created to justify all these extra positions. So, the 55 jobs you have been told about being created with all of that money, doesn't mention the jobs that have been justified in the Public Sector, in order to spend all of that money, and "create" those 55 jobs. Or rather the illusion of "creating" them.



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by boondock-saint

1 job at minimum wage yields app. $24K yr.
Where did the other 1.476 million go???
.


Well, not really.

You are forgetting to include the employers share of payroll taxes, which come directly out of the employees wages.

You are also forgetting to include state and federal unemployment insurance costs.

You are also forgetting to include employer healthcare costs.

Typically these are the minimum additional costs per job that must be borne by the employer.

Of course, if the guy gets any kind of 401k matching, bonuses, etc.. etc.. costs could be well beyond that.

So really, each employee probably did cost several trillion dollars considering the benefits government employees get beyond their paycheck.



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 06:11 PM
link   
Hey! Obama said that he was going to create jobs!!
He just never said how much it would cost......
American voters are so stupid.



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 06:14 PM
link   
As long as government agencies recieve budget based funding, we will always see this kind of waste.

What agency will ever produce a sustainable and productive budget, if everytime they cut spending, their overall budget get's cut.

The only way for the angecy to survive is have the budget constantly grow, and this leads to all the BS "patronage" contracts/paycheques/etc.

This system leads to incredibly wasteful spending.


edit on 17-9-2010 by peck420 because: I'm a spelling champ



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 06:15 PM
link   
i like the term created or retained 55 jobs???? Thats a 110 job swing. CHANGE YOU CAN BELIVE IN!



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Steve8511
Hey! Obama said that he was going to create jobs!!
He just never said how much it would cost......
American voters are so stupid.


You havent seen the STUPIDEST yet from the American people!!!!!!!!!!!

November will show how STUPID Americans are!! It seems Americans have FORGOTTEN the THIEVING GANGSTER REPUBLICANS who TANKED this economy and caused so much job losses. Now we have had someone in office (a DEMOCRAT) who has been SCRAMBLING from DAY 1 to try and pick the country back up, and just because its not milk and honey after such short time, they are going to elect THE CROOKS BACK IN this November. UNBELIEVABLE!!

THATS STUPID AMERICANS FOR YOU!!!!!!!!

You just cannot get ANY STUPIDER than that!!!



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by jontap

Originally posted by Steve8511
Hey! Obama said that he was going to create jobs!!
He just never said how much it would cost......
American voters are so stupid.


You havent seen the STUPIDEST yet from the American people!!!!!!!!!!!

November will show how STUPID Americans are!! It seems Americans have FORGOTTEN the THIEVING GANGSTER REPUBLICANS who TANKED this economy and caused so much job losses. Now we have had someone in office (a DEMOCRAT) who has been SCRAMBLING from DAY 1 to try and pick the country back up, and just because its not milk and honey after such short time, they are going to elect THE CROOKS BACK IN this November. UNBELIEVABLE!!

THATS STUPID AMERICANS FOR YOU!!!!!!!!

You just cannot get ANY STUPIDER than that!!!


I still dont see how this is a republican problem. the republicans did not force the banks to make risky lones under penilty to people that cant afford them. So when the housing maket crashed after people could not pay for there houses so did the market. the market was back by these propertys that the DEMOCRATS forced the bankers to sale. get your facts strate and start blaming the real party to blame



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 06:32 PM
link   
reply to post by camaro68ss
 


Many Americans have no idea that the problem you speak of DID IN FACT happened on Bush's watch, under Bush's policy.

You, are one of MANY who FAILS to know the FACTS!!!



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 06:39 PM
link   
The Republican may not have -forced- the banks to do anything, HOWEVER they were the ones driving the car so to speak. They were the one's who were supposed to be monitoring the situation. I don't know about you, but if I was Bush and I saw this economic disaster coming down the turn-pike I SURE AS HELL wouldn't be pumping more money into our military operations, or even SIGN A SINGLE BILL that contained pork in it. And here I thought Republican's stood for fiscal integrity?



As for me, the stimulus sent 5 billion to my state and created 27,000 or so jobs. Not very good IMO but what do I know, I still work for minimum wage heh.


edit on 9/17/10 by ElijahWan because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 06:52 PM
link   
I am an ex-republican and will tell you that they are VERY much AGAINST the American economy and the American middle class NO DOUBT.

I have always sensed this about them but gave them the benefit of the doubt for WAY TOO LONG!!! They are THIEVES and CROOKS that hate the American middle class and HATE working class Americans.

They fill the pockets of themselves and their wealthy buddies while screwing the economy, and screwing American workers while at the same time killing off our sons and daughters and citizens of other countries via WAR of nonsense.

Isnt that enough of a reason to go with the MUCH lesser evil of the both parties? They both have flaws, but at least the Democrats TRY TO HELP WORKING CLASS AND MIDDLE CLASS AMERICANS and do NOT CARE TO WAR WITH EVERYONE EVERY SECOND OF EVERYDAY!!!!



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 07:02 PM
link   
I'm abysmally ignorant when it comes to economics. Does this mean 55 new millionaires were created or did the red tape eat all that money? It all sounds effed up to me.



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 07:45 PM
link   
reply to post by jontap
 


Off Topic

Dude calm down, like seriously. Someone needs to stop watching the news. If your subscribing and acknowledging to the separate party system and chugging down main stream media drama then you are part of the problem here. So please calm down and take a level perspective.

This is not a left vs right issue, and it never will be, nor should it be. No matter which of your parties ends up in power, it's two doors to the same slaughter house.

George Washington warned against the party system in his Farewell Address:



Warns against the party system. "It serves to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration....agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one....against another....it opens the door to foreign influence and corruption...thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another."
Source

On Topic

I have a feeling I'm not sure all jobs may have been reported, then again I don't know, and I'm not behind the scenes to see how this money was spent when it got handed out. Though I am having a little bit of trouble reading the key on that map. Someone wish to explain?

Even if this does equal extremely bad management, this should still equal to more residual jobs, I believe.


edit on 17-9-2010 by Scarcer because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 07:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Scarcer
 


Fair enough.

Fair enough indeed.



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 08:00 PM
link   
$1.5 million per job. Well they did better than I thought they would do.


Let me see, so we have what the government says 15 million people unemployed.

SO, double that to 30 million. Heck, we have 42 million on foodstamps. So let us do some math shall we?



1.5 million x 30 million = $45,000,000,000,000

SO, with the Marxist/Communist technique of job creation, it will only take $45 Trillion to put the country back to work.

Hey Bernanke! Fire up them printing presses!






posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 08:10 PM
link   
This problem has been going on for years, this is nothing new. For the longest time, since the idea has first come up, the people in congress has been spending money on pet projects, often the amounts are getting larger and larger, ending up with the nickname of pork. The spending has been excessive, and both the Republicans and the Democratics are guilty of such. Many time these extra little bits are slipped in as part of another bill, used to gather votes from the different members inorder to ensure that pet projects are funded at the expense of the tax payers.
It is only now, that the country is doing poorly in an economic recession, with a large number of unemployed, is the reality of what is being spent coming out. And alot of the money is either not getting spent, and helping the people, or what we would consider for the value of the dollar, just is not there. It is ultimately a farce and insulting when you consider that for that amount of money, so few jobs are created and or saved. Combined with that it has been proven, that the way the government accounting office, keeps track of these numbers are not honest.
The ultimate question is when will the federal government finally admit that alot of the way that they are attempting to stimulate the economy is just not having the desired effect and perhaps they need get the opinion of other people in that field.



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 08:42 PM
link   
reply to post by jontap
 


nah you cant get any more stupid than spending money you dont freaking have.

im sure you will bring up bush and the republicans did it to simple fact bush is gone democrats have been spending since 2006 ....

spending is ok as long as its a democrat doing it.

in my mind that dog dont hunt.


the american voter is stupid because they are tying to stop the idiots in washington from spending what they dont have.....

another dog that doesnt hunt.


edit on 17-9-2010 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by jontap
reply to post by camaro68ss
 


Many Americans have no idea that the problem you speak of DID IN FACT happened on Bush's watch, under Bush's policy.

You, are one of MANY who FAILS to know the FACTS!!!


Under bush's watch yes but he only had power for the first two years till the Dems took over then he was powerless to change anything. you twist the facts to prove your agenda. The Dems had the power in congress and bills cant be made with out congress. all the POTUS does is sign and is the comander of the USA forces. thats all the POTUS does.

Dems really get my fired up with there talking points and ignorance to life and how the goverment really runs.



new topics

top topics



 
6

log in

join