• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Exclusive: Jobs 'Saved or Created' in Congressional Districts That Don't Exist

Not a lie, a simple clerical error.

Get real.

Sorry sport this goes way beyond a simple clerical error it is a willful pattern of deceit for example the GAO just reported that 58,000 of these jobs supposedly saved by the stimulus package were supposedly from companies that didn't even receive stimulus money. THEY ARE MAKING UP THE NUMBERS, just like they made up this district. If this was a simple honest mistake there wouldn't have been no less than 440 fake districts in all fifty states, 4 territories, and Washington D.C.. If this was a simple honest mistake we wouldn't be seeing report after report overstating job numbers we would also be seeing reports understating job numbers but we don't, the errors are all in one direction.

Why would they lie? It's easily-noticed information, on a public website.


So? They simply don't care. Question: can you audit these created jobs? Answer: No. Question: So how do you know that the statistics are accurate? Answer: Because they must be true they're on recovery.org. Oh I **** you not.
 
Last edited:
Because it's a pointless thread. The reports will be allocated to the appropriate districts and this will be a non-issue. Try to find something more substantial to bash Obama on, there are plenty of topics out there.

Here is one example of incorrect allocation ABC found:
"For example, recovery.gov says $34 million in stimulus money has been spent in Arizona's 86th congressional district in a project for the Navajo Housing authority, which is actually located in the 1st congressional district."

It appears to be errors of the receipt submissions having the wrong district on them. Recovery.gov was just failing in quality control of the receipts submitted for their reports.
Well we have our first liberal defender.
 
Damn gibberish, you spoiled their circle jerk, just as they were having so much fun too. :rofl
Here's liberal defender #2.
 
You and others argued the exact same thing for Bush's argument for Iraq.

Are you going to be consistent? Or are you going to be your typical hypocrite?
I knew I wouldn't be disappointed. It's liberal defender #3.
 
I'm not trying to whitewash over unemployement records. I'm merely pointing out that this is incompetency in reporting and not a malicious act.


Sorry sport this goes way beyond a simple clerical error it is a willful pattern of deceit for example the GAO just reported that 58,000 of these jobs supposedly saved by the stimulus package were supposedly from companies that didn't even receive stimulus money. THEY ARE MAKING UP THE NUMBERS, just like they made up these districts. If this was a simple honest mistake there wouldn't have been no less than 440 fake districts in all fifty states, 4 territories, and Washington D.C.. If this was a simple honest mistake we wouldn't be seeing report after report overstating job numbers we would also be seeing reports understating job numbers but we don't, the errors are all in one direction.
 
Links Please

Why don’t you and I take advantage of one of the seldom used (at least since they buried the forum on the bottom of the first page) forums here at DP.

Go here and familiarize yourself with the rules and come back and we can talk/debate to our hearts content on the Clinton surplus whether it was a real surplus on not. No use having two debates going on this thread is there? :2wave:
 
Yawn, I,ll match you wiki with this.:roll:

deficit.jpg



Economic Performance of Presidential Administrations
There never was a Clinton surplus, it was fantasy.
 
Why don’t you and I take advantage of one of the seldom used (at least since they buried the forum on the bottom of the first page) forums here at DP.

Go here and familiarize yourself with the rules and come back and we can talk/debate to our hearts content on the Clinton surplus whether it was a real surplus on not. No use having two debates going on this thread is there? :2wave:

Um when the interest on the national debt is calculated into the deficit number the deficit actually increased in the last year of the Clinton administration.
 
Re: $6.4 billion in Porkulus money spent in phantom districts?

A non-story. People have been putting the wrong congressional district numbers on the reports. Wow, big scandal.
Liberal defender #4.
 
Once again when interest on the national debt is calculated into the equation the budget deficit actually increased in the last year of the Clinton Administration.

Originally Posted by American View Post
There never was a Clinton surplus, it was fantasy.

Note the bolded part.
 
Ya it didn't exist because when the interest on the national debt is calculated in the national deficit actually increased in that year.

As soon as you find a bit of evidence that says what you want it to say, you stop looking eh?

Here check this out and before you start squawking about the third paragraph that contains this little jewel< Social Security taxes now bring in more than the cost of current benefits, and the "Social Security surplus" makes the total deficit or surplus figures look better than they would if Social Security wasn't counted.> better check on whose watch started raiding the social security fund.


FactCheck.org: During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced? Was the federal deficit erased?
 
As soon as you find a bit of evidence that says what you want it to say, you stop looking eh?

Here check this out and before you start squawking about the third paragraph that contains this little jewel< Social Security taxes now bring in more than the cost of current benefits, and the "Social Security surplus" makes the total deficit or surplus figures look better than they would if Social Security wasn't counted.> better check on whose watch started raiding the social security fund.


FactCheck.org: During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced? Was the federal deficit erased?

Social security? Whose talking about social security? I'm talking about the interest on the national debt. The national debt increased every single year Clinton was in office. The national debt increased every single year Clinton was in office.
 
Last edited:
Social security? Whose talking about social security? I'm talking about the interest on the national debt. The national debt increased every single year Clinton was in office. The national debt increased every single year Clinton was in office.

budget.jpg


Once again see if you can believe the CBO.:roll:
 
Last edited:
lol those figures don't take the interest paid on the national debt or off budget items into account.

FY1999: $5.656270 trillion

FY2000: $5.674178 trillion

FY2001: $5.807463 trillion

Woops. :roll:

Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)

If you had read the link I provided you would not have been quite as confused about a deficit and the federal debt. Woops.


<Update, Feb. 11: Some readers wrote to us saying we should have made clear the difference between the federal deficit and the federal debt. A deficit occurs when the government takes in less money than it spends in a given year. The debt is the total amount the government owes at any given time. So the debt goes up in any given year by the amount of the deficit, or it decreases by the amount of any surplus. The debt the government owes to the public decreased for a while under Clinton, but the debt was by no means erased.>
 
If you had read the link I provided you would not have been quite as confused about a deficit and the federal debt. Woops.


<Update, Feb. 11: Some readers wrote to us saying we should have made clear the difference between the federal deficit and the federal debt. A deficit occurs when the government takes in less money than it spends in a given year. The debt is the total amount the government owes at any given time. So the debt goes up in any given year by the amount of the deficit, or it decreases by the amount of any surplus. The debt the government owes to the public decreased for a while under Clinton, but the debt was by no means erased.>

And guess what? When the budget deficits were added to the national debt the national debt INCREASED in the years that you are claiming a surplus. That is why the surplus was a myth because when off budget items and the interest on the national debt are calculated with the budget status the national debt INCREASES. Not really a hard concept to understand.
 
Re: $6.4 billion in Porkulus money spent in phantom districts?

Liberal defender #4.

You have no idea what my ideology is.

You can pick:

1. Clerical errors.
2. Massive conspiracy to "hide" fraud by putting it on a public website for anyone to easily find.

I pick sanity. You can pick paranoid lunacy if you want.
 
Once again when interest on the national debt is calculated into the equation the budget deficit actually increased in the last year of the Clinton Administration.

No it didn't.
 
Back
Top Bottom