Obama Schools Elisabeth Hasselbeck on 'Saved' Jobs and Unemployment on 'The View'

[Drunken Irishman]

Leave it to Elisabeth Hasselbeck to ask a question on "The View" that she believed was designed to make President Barack Obama look bad on his historic visit to the popular current affairs talk show. But, then, one knew that Elisabeth Hasselbeck, who has been a non-stop critic of Obama (even before he became president), would either go the immigration route or the unemployment route (or both). To his credit, Obama remained his usual imperturbable self and provided a reasonable response to her question. Even more to his credit, President Obama did not attack Republicans and conservatives while doing so.

...

Elisabeth Hasselbeck pressed, repeating (a common tactic in attempts to label or associate someone with something) that she didn't understand how he -- and his administration -- could say that they had "saved" jobs. President Obama got more direct.

"It makes a difference if your job is one that was saved," he told her.

The audience of "The View" erupted in applause.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/5634238/obama_schools_elisabeth_hasselbeck.html

[BrklynLiberal]

1. That empty-headed twit is so beyond help that it is absurd.

It would not surprise me at all to have it revealed some day that she is in fact a "Stepford" woman. Nothing real there. Merely an animatronic creature designed specifically to repeat what her programming dictates. Nothing else there.



No doubt, this was her prototype

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

2. You're being way too harsh on Obama!

:grr:

[BrklynLiberal]

4. lol

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

5. -

[tularetom]

3. Whoever fed the talking points to Hasselbeyotch

Forgot to feed her a comeback.

She completely STFU after that little exchange.

[grace0418]

6. Our president has a measurable IQ. She's no match for that.

She needs to go away.

[JSK]

12. Right-wing produce Billy Getty

is the tool who feeds her the talking points. They meet behind closed doors before every show and he also coaches her on her earpiece.

[Clio the Leo]

19. She & that Palin woman cooked that up on the phone the night before.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_B5PTPO-d8Ew/SeEjeWMH8wI/AAAAAAAAAPo/qYlmgqNGfck/s400/Palin:Hasselbeck.jpg

[AspenRose]

7. Our president had a battle of wits with an unarmed person

She didn't stand a chance. And she's delusional if she thought she did.

[a kennedy]

9. I even thought I heard her voice crack a tad when asking that question......

I could tell she was nervous asking it.....

[BrklynLiberal]

14. "A battle of wits with an unarmed person"..NEVER was applied to a more appropriate situation.

:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:

[Solomon]

17. t'was brilliant indeed!

:thumbsup: I'm stealing that one.

[monmouth]

8. Glad Hannity got the notes to her on time...n/t

[4lbs]

10. I was hoping President Obama would 'school' her and the rest of the viewers even more

on the stimulus and jobs.

For example, how Obama's original plan for the stimulus was much closer to the trillion dollars that most economists though was needed. However, many in Congress, mainly on the right, argued it was too much, and to get the votes for cloture and passage, it had to be trimmed from $950 billion down to $787 billion. Think how much more could have been done with that extra $160 billion.

Then, we have the dozens of Republican governors of the states. The original bill had direct, specific, targets for the stimulus funds, especially when it came to job creation. However, most of the Governors, nearly all of whom were Republican, howled that they didn't want the federal government telling them how to spend the stimulus money. So, that was stripped out.

As a result, we have Repuke governors, like the guy that replaced Corzine in New Jersey. He took $2 billion in stimulus money, and instead of using it to create jobs, fired 50,000 teachers and gave tax cuts to the wealthy in New Jersey. The $2 billion in stimulus money, plus the money from not paying those 50,000 teachers offset the lower taxes from those tax cuts for the New Jersey wealthy.

That right there is why more jobs weren't created. We have Repuke Congress and Governor idiots intentionally crapping all over the original intent of the stimulus. Then, when they are done posing for pictures next to the stimulus check they did allow (but didn't want in the first place), they go on various media outlets complaining about what a failure the stimulus bill was, when it was they themselves that had a major role in it being that way.

[Phx_Dem]

11. That was beautiful. God, she's an ass.

[Forkboy]

13. That had to have been the most unfair fight since Godzilla took on the American Godzilla.

And trust me, that wasn't even close. :)

[thelordofhell]

15. You don't take a knife to a gunfight

stupid girl

[donheld]

16. Pearls before swine

[mrcolley]

18. I'm not sure how he schooled her...

It didn't sound like he answered the question about the "saved" jobs. It's hard to have a consistent count on such a subjective stat. Especially when making a pair of boots counts as a "saved" job.

[Qutzupalotl]

20. It makes a difference if your job is making boots.

[mrcolley]

23. So how many jobs are saved per pair of boots? n/m

[Qutzupalotl]

25. Why would you measure it that way?

[mrcolley]

27. I think that's exactly the problem

No one that I know of knows the definition of a job saved. Pretty subjective. I would love to know how that number is calculated.

[Qutzupalotl]

30. Where are you getting that 1 pair of boots = 1 job?

[Qutzupalotl]

32. Never mind, I think I found your source.

From the conservative blogosphere, deceptively taking one private citizen's mistake on a form as though it represented government policy.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=7&ved=0CCoQFjAG&url=http%3A%2F%2Fbrothersjuddblog.com%2Farchives%2F2010%2F06%2Fperhaps_it_would_be_helpful_if.html&ei=PklTTITYG4L_8Aadm9yrAw&usg=AFQjCNEN0z3Btk8Ead0QhYobcTZfonC-Yg&sig2=VqFBME94kuwrpLDLWlM8Kw

A shoe-store owner in Kentucky who sold boots to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (for work on a project made possible by stimulus funds) claimed to have created nine jobs with $889 — a feat that would certainly make him the most efficient job creator in the country. The store owner apparently reasoned that he was creating one job for every pair of boots he sold the Army; after all, a soldier could not go to work on the project without a pair of boots. The episode received attention only because a reporter discovered the ridiculous claim, and the owner then asserted that he had been confused by the government form.

[mrcolley]

34. Well, who reports the jobs created or saved?

That would be the people filling the forms out. Are you kidding me that you haven't heard any of these bogus jobs saved stats? I would love to go by the administration's stats of jobs saved. Oh wait, they don't publish anything except a number.

[Qutzupalotl]

36. I think it's telling you would trumpet one person's mistake

knowing it's a mistake, in order to slam the president.

No, I hadn't heard the boots story, but that's probably because I don't scour conservative blogs looking for dirt on Obama.

[mrcolley]

38. That was only one example

One of the problems with this deal is that there is so much confusion with what constitutes a "saved" job that there a plenty of other examples of these bogus jobs stats. If you have some data from a neutral site, I would love to take a look. I'm not interested in slamming him. He certainly has his good points (well spoken, charismatic, strong leadership qualities). I just don't like spending the US into an even larger hole than already with no quantitatively perceptible improvement.

[Qutzupalotl]

39. Then you must be for letting the Bush tax cuts expire, right?

Since they didn't seem to create jobs but they dramatically exacerbated the deficit.

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/02/bush_recession.html

[mrcolley]

43. What do you think would happen if they were allowed to expire?

No, I don't think the Bush tax cuts should be repealed. I disagree that the tax cuts did not create jobs. After 9/11, we certainly took an economic hit. In June 2003, unemployment hit a Bush administration high of 6.3% and started a decline to 4.4% in October 2006. It didn't go over 5.0% until February 2008. I believe this to be the result of the tax cuts and stimulation of private business. I do see a trending down in 2010 also, so we'll see where that goes. It does look like the job growth under Bush was much cheaper than that under Obama. My source is bls.gov.

[Qutzupalotl]

48. We'd have trillions more.

Unless you can prove that tax cuts create jobs, I'll assume your opinion on that is faith-based. Correlation does not equal causation, and frankly I'm not even seeing much correlation.

The Bush tax cuts reduced revenues by over $2 trillion and cost an additional $379 billion in interest payments on the national debt. That ain't cheap! Budget hawks should be against them, especially since they were initially sold as job-creators.

Here's a handy chart of job losses and creation:

[mrcolley]

49. What's the source?

Simply posting a chart hardly shows causation for your case either. A decline in revenues does not point to any specific catalyst. When businesses pay fewer taxes, they have more money to spend on growing their businesses which raises revenue to the govt. Common sense.

[Qutzupalotl]

53. How can you say this with a straight face?

When businesses pay fewer taxes, they have more money to spend on growing their businesses which raises revenue to the govt.

That's the trickle-down theory the Republicans have been trying to sell for decades. We cut taxes on the rich at the start of Bush's first term, and it didn't work.

Taxes are revenue. If businesses pay fewer taxes, that means less revenue. When you cut taxes, you cut revenue. Common sense.

Virtually every economics Ph.D. who has worked in a prominent role in the Bush Administration acknowledges that the tax cuts enacted during the past six years have not paid for themselves--and were never intended to.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1692027,00.html#ixzz0vH3Kaggb

This record suggests two conclusions. One is that there's no evidence to support the argument from congressional Republicans that tax cuts offer a silver bullet for expanding employment. Job growth boomed after Reagan cut taxes, but expanded even faster after Clinton raised them, and then faltered despite two massive tax cuts under Bush. If tax rates are the critical factor in that record, the relationship is well disguised.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/nj_20100515_5237.php?mrefid=site_search

The source I used for the cost of the Bush tax cuts was Citizens for Tax Justice:

The tax legislation enacted under President George W. Bush from 2001 through 2006 will cost $2.48 trillion over the 2001-2010 period. This includes the revenue loss of $2.11 trillion that results directly from the Bush tax cuts as well as the $379 billion in additional interest payments on the national debt that we must make since the tax cuts were deficit-financed.
http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/study-bush-tax-cuts-cost-more-twice-m

Oh, and I posted the jobs chart earlier not to imply causation, but just to rub your Bush-loving nose in it. :+

[mrcolley]

54. I'm not a Bush fan by the way

But I hope Obama works out for you. After all, his promise to not raise taxes on under $200,000 is turning out to be a lie. If you're OK with believing the rest of his change and hope, I'm sure the rest of your life is working out in a similarly fantastic manner. See you in November! :-)

[Qutzupalotl]

55. Got a link for that?

The part about raising taxes on people earning under $200K? Oh wait, I found something like that on Breitbart, about cigarettes. That's all you got? Really?

Personally, I enjoyed my payroll tax cut that Obama gave me last year, and I hope you did too. I know I went out and spent it, as did millions of others, which is one reason why business is picking up. You see, when you lower taxes on low wage earners, it's much more stimulative than tax cuts for the rich, who simply put it in the bank (or if they create any jobs, create them in foreign cheap-labor countries).

I realize Obama's payroll tax cut was only temporary, just as you should realize the Bush tax cuts for the rich were only temporary, with a built-in sunset provision because we never could afford them.

I think you're unpatriotic for not wanting to pay your taxes and support your nation. That's how you support the troops, too.

[pokercat999]

56. Well he IS well spoken, WAS charismatic but as far as

leadership? Ever heard of universal healthcare? Single payer? Public Option? Just a fucking buy-in on the insurance offered to every federal employee, at the same price?

[mitchum]

21. It took you 6 years to make a post...

and it's this?
Hmmm...

[mrcolley]

22. Yeah, I usually don't post.

I would like to hear him answer the question, though. I don't consider her being schooled by a non-answer. Just saying.

And your going into my profile in an attempt to discredit me indicates that you're more interested in avoiding the question than answering it.

[mitchum]

24. Yeah, I'm a regular Gladys Kravitz

[mrcolley]

26. Again, avoiding the issue

This seems to be the same tactic that Obama used with Hasselbeck. I guess you just schooled me.

[SalviaBlue]

28. Read the article - Obama specifically answered her so called question.

Here is the schooling part:

snip

In a long and rambling question that was more of an accusation than a question, Hasselbeck asked President Obama how his administration could "claim" and "boast" to have "saved jobs" when the unemployment rate keeps "hovering" around the 10 percent mark and so many were jobless. After he explained that he believed, and noted that even Senator John McCain's former economic advisor believed, that, if not for the stimulus package supported by his administration, millions of more people would have lost their jobs (and the country would have experienced another Great Depression), especially those who worked in state governments that were specifically targeted by the stimulus.

snip

Hasselbeck is an idiot.

[mrcolley]

29. Didn't the Obama administration say...

that unemployment wouldn't go over 8 percent with the stimulus? With unemployment around 10 percent, it seems obvious that the stimulus did not have the intended effect. I'm not sure that Obama saying that he "believes" that more people would have lost their jobs qualifies as schooling. Not really a quantitative measure, is it?

[SalviaBlue]

31. I guess he failed to factor in the possiblity that

U.S. companies would hoard more cash -- $1.84 trillion -- than at any point in financial history.

Cash reserves have jumped 26 percent in one year, the largest increase since at least 1952.



http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/06/17/wa...

[mrcolley]

35. Hoarding, huh?

I guess it's not their money after all. It belongs to the government, right? They let us keep what we "need". With the pending tax hikes for $200k and up (read small business filing individual tax returns), I would be sitting on my money to see what happens also. If companies can make money from hiring more people, they'll do it. Maybe they believe that they'll be demonized as "rich" and progressively penalized if they build their businesses.

[mitchum]

40. More likely that they will be deified as "rich"...

because, unfortunately, it is very easy to manipulate the proles

[mrcolley]

41. I guess it depends on the perspective and agenda, huh? n/m

[MadMaddie]

51. You are right it's their cash

to export American jobs for cheap labor.

to make as much profit as possible without any responsibility or concerns for workers (coal mines)

American Companies have absolutely no responsibility to America or it's citizens, their only responsiblity is to make cash hand over fist.

When those same careless companies fuck up Enron, Wall Street, BP they look for handouts from the government and the taxpayers.

If this was a truely "Free Market", these companies would simply fail and go away but they don't.

Why do you think they are Union Busting? They don't want to pay American workers.

America is only as great as it's citizens. Citizens make up towns, cities, states and this country.

Perhaps you should look at the Republicans vote this week and ask yourself why they wouldn't support the bill to provide money to local banks to provide loans to small businesses?

How are the Republicans trying to help Americans out of work? How will tax breaks for the rich create jobs? It's a myth!

[mrcolley]

52. Why do people start and maintain a business?

It's to make a living. Since your referring to large corporations now instead of small business, I'll point out that the United States has one of the highest, if not the highest, corporate tax rates in the world. It's no wonder that these companies move some or all of the operations to a more favorable business setting. Their job is to make money and create the most successful company for their owners (stockholders) that they can. There is not any mandatory altruistic goal that US companies are held to.

AS for the companies failing, I agree that they should have been allowed to fail. Bailing these companies out only reinforced the notion that they can run their businesses as poorly as they want to. AS long as they are "too big to fail", the US taxpayers will fix it and allow them to continue with the same poor business practices.

As for union busting, that would be because the free market should pay. Detroit auto workers, primarily because of union strong-arm tactics, make far more than they would in a free market. According to the UAW, the base pay for UAW workers was $28/hour (before the crash). That's base pay! $60,000 per year. Do you think the lowest job in a UAW plant should make $60,000 per year? Sounds pretty high to me for a labor job.

Maybe you should ask yourself why the Democrats didn't vote to support that bill. They have the votes to do whatever they want, pretty much. It's because they don't want to face the voters in November and explain why they can't find places to cut to pay for new spending. We can't keep spending money we don't have to fix things that wouldn't be broken if not for government intervention in the first place.

I would like for you to take the class warfare rhetoric out of your final question and ask yourself, "How will tax breaks for small businesses create jobs?" Basic economic theory says that if small business have more money at their disposal and economic conditions are such that they can grow their business, they will hire people and grow their business. Those "rich" people that make over $200,000 a year are small businesses that file personal income tax returns. Are they the ones who should fix decades of government bureaucrats spending money they don't have? Let's take the class envy out of this and stop trying to "scare" the American people with such rhetoric.

By the way, I believe that the Republicans have been just as fiscally irresponsible as the Democrats have. I do admire Clinton for paying down debt and managing a balanced budget. An argument could be made that the Republican Congress forced him into such fiscal restraint but he was the man at the time and I give him credit. I just wish this mentality was the norm for Washington rather than the exception. Let's run America like a successful business that pays for things as we go rather than running our country into the ground by borrowing to pay for more vote buying programs.

[OhioBlue]

57. how many small businesses with employees

file individual tax returns?

[JNelson6563]

33. A class act, as usual.

In the face of idiocy, as usual.

Julie

[mrcolley]

37. Interesting strategy

Call names rather than discuss the facts in a civil manner. I'm open to hearing your point of view if you can present it in a lucid, respectful manner.

[Qutzupalotl]

42. But is it more interesting than defending Hasselbeck on Democratic Underground?

:rofl:

[mrcolley]

44. Wow, why not discuss the issues...

instead of resorting to sarcastic rhetoric? I wasn't so much defending Hasselbeck as wishing Obama would answer the question.

[Moosepoop]

45. You do realize that post #33 was responding to the OP, right?

If not, then why single this post out over "name-calling" when there have been plenty of others calling that idiot Hasselbeck names on this thread?

If you realize that the post in question was in reply to the OP and not to you, then your use of adjectives describing the poster as uncivil, not lucid, and disrespectful (and the pronouncement of what *you* are *open to hearing*) indicates either a grossly inflated sense of grandiosity on your part, or a rather interesting strategy of random name-calling on your part.

If you thought that the post in question was to you, that would put you in Hasselbeck's league.

Which was it?




Edited to fix a typo.

[mrcolley]

46. Dude, it was a mistake

I lost track of who the reply was to. My mistake.

[mrcolley]

47. Sorry, my mistake

Lost track of who the reply was to.

[JNelson6563]

50. It's all good.

Peace.