• 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!

Obama Administration Grant Program De-Emphasizing Job Creation

apdst

apdst

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2009
Messages
133,631
Reaction score
30,937
Location
Bagdad, La.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
It's not about jobs anymore, but most of us already knew that in February. It's becoming more obvious everyday that the Stealfromus bill nothing more than a pork bill designed to fund every Liberal wet dream for the past 30 years.

When Vice President Joe Biden announced a new $3.3 billion grant program to upgrade the nation’s electricity network, the rationale was simple: “This is jobs -- jobs,” he said in April.

But the Obama administration is now saying it will not take the potential for job creation into account in “rating” proposed projects for possible funding -- after initially saying that would be a primary consideration.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/20...grant-program-deemphasizing-job-creation.html
Click to expand...
 
You obviously didn't keep reading because you took the first two paragraphs at face value. What about this part of your OP?

In a question-and-answer section written to help applicants understand the process, the document continues: “Will DOE use the number of jobs estimated to be created and/or retained as a criterion for rating a proposal for funding?”

“No. Although job creation is not included in the technical criteria used to rate proposals, it plays an important role throughout the grant process, and grant recipients are required to submit the numbers of jobs created and retained in their quarterly reports to DOE and to recovery.gov.”

No further explanation was given. A Department of Energy spokeswoman said that, despite the change, job creation still “will be taken into account as one of several factors in the application review,” since the program is being implemented in accordance with the goals articulated in the stimulus package.

“The goal of the Recovery Act is to support projects that will create jobs now and usher in a clean energy economy that will also create jobs for years to come,” the spokeswoman, Jen Stutsman, said in a written statement.
Click to expand...

So, why can't the number of jobs be the criteria for projects getting first dibs? It's because there are times when the priorities have to be about safety of the infrastructure rather than number of bodies applied to said work. Our infrastructure is badly in need of repair and given that we don't even have enough in the stimulus to shore up all our infrastructure, there has to be criteria for what needs most attention now.

So, it is about job creation, just not about the number of bodies on the ground given a priority in the system of infrastructure.
 
formerroadie said:
You obviously didn't keep reading because you took the first two paragraphs at face value. What about this part of your OP?
Click to expand...

I obviously only posted a couple of paragraphs, per forum rules.



So, why can't the number of jobs be the criteria for projects getting first dibs? It's because there are times when the priorities have to be about safety of the infrastructure rather than number of bodies applied to said work. Our infrastructure is badly in need of repair and given that we don't even have enough in the stimulus to shore up all our infrastructure, there has to be criteria for what needs most attention now.

So, it is about job creation, just not about the number of bodies on the ground given a priority in the system of infrastructure.
Click to expand...



Jobs--since we're in a recession and people are being laid off everyday--should take priority over most everything else.

Ultimately, though, the infrastructure inprovements that are most needed are the ones that will produce the most immediate jobs--replacing roads and bridges--that's a no brainer.

It's painfully obvious that this about wet dream funding and not about creating jobs.

It's said all too clear in this comment:

“The goal of the Recovery Act is to support projects that will create jobs now and usher in a clean energy economy that will also create jobs for years to come,” the spokeswoman, Jen Stutsman, said in a written statement.
Click to expand...

Which really means: "**** the jobs, we're going for our green policy, instead". How much safer is the green agenda going to make us?
 
apdst said:
I obviously only posted a couple of paragraphs, per forum rules.

Jobs--since we're in a recession and people are being laid off everyday--should take priority over most everything else.

Ultimately, though, the infrastructure inprovements that are most needed are the ones that will produce the most immediate jobs--replacing roads and bridges--that's a no brainer.

It's painfully obvious that this about wet dream funding and not about creating jobs.

It's said all too clear in this comment:

Which really means: "**** the jobs, we're going for our green policy, instead". How much safer is the green agenda going to make us?
Click to expand...

In other words, you don't want to see the complex nature of the situation with infrastructure in our country falling apart and the need for energy independence more important now than ever? Those things will create jobs. I don't see why you're so razzled by this. You see what you want to see and leave the rest out of your own equation.
 
It's just more broken promises to get into office. Pretty simple.
 
American said:
It's just more broken promises to get into office. Pretty simple.
Click to expand...

No it isn't, but Obama could create 1,000,000 new jobs and you would bitch about how he didn't create 1,000,001 because you hate Obama.

The ODS is in full bloom here.
 
formerroadie said:
You obviously didn't keep reading because you took the first two paragraphs at face value. What about this part of your OP?

So, why can't the number of jobs be the criteria for projects getting first dibs? It's because there are times when the priorities have to be about safety of the infrastructure rather than number of bodies applied to said work. Our infrastructure is badly in need of repair and given that we don't even have enough in the stimulus to shore up all our infrastructure, there has to be criteria for what needs most attention now.

So, it is about job creation, just not about the number of bodies on the ground given a priority in the system of infrastructure.
Click to expand...
Just one problem with your reasoning--it isn't what the DoE said, even in the part of the article you quoted.

In a question-and-answer section written to help applicants understand the process, the document continues: “Will DOE use the number of jobs estimated to be created and/or retained as a criterion for rating a proposal for funding?”

“No. Although job creation is not included in the technical criteria used to rate proposals, it plays an important role throughout the grant process, and grant recipients are required to submit the numbers of jobs created and retained in their quarterly reports to DOE and to recovery.gov.”
Click to expand...
They did not say that job creation would give way to safety considerations for some projects. You say that, not the DoE. The DoE says that job creation and retention is not a criterion for rating proposals for funding.
 
TheNextEra said:
No it isn't, but Obama could create 1,000,000 new jobs and you would bitch about how he didn't create 1,000,001 because you hate Obama.

The ODS is in full bloom here.
Click to expand...
$787 billion was just spent in a way that will never help the economy. What is it going to take for you to hold Obama accountable? I would say you are far more biased than any Obama hater, and far more dangerous to the future of this country.

And if he did create a million jobs, that would be 1/20 of what Reagan created, who took the exact OPPOSITE approach to a very similar economy back in 1983.
 
TheNextEra said:
No it isn't, but Obama could create 1,000,000 new jobs and you would bitch about how he didn't create 1,000,001 because you hate Obama.

The ODS is in full bloom here.
Click to expand...

At this point 10% of that would be an improvement. The math does not lie. The politicians do. If you could peek out of your partisan tent for a moment you would see just that.


Employment Situation Summary
Commissioner Bureau of Labor Statistics


If you are not selling health care, energy, or government right now... It is sad times ahead and maybe even then.
 
akyron said:
If you could peek out of your partisan tent for a moment you would see just that.
Click to expand...

Considering I did not approve of the way he did the bailout, your point is idiotic accusing me of being in a partisan tent.

Nice try but no cigar, unless you want to be Bill Clinton's love toy that is.
 
apdst said:
But, he didn't. Did he?
Click to expand...

doesn't invalidate the point that no matter what Obama does, even if it is good, American and the other Obama haters will find SOMETHING wrong with it.
 
G.I. Joe said:
$787 billion was just spent in a way that will never help the economy. What is it going to take for you to hold Obama accountable? I would say you are far more biased than any Obama hater, and far more dangerous to the future of this country.
Click to expand...

Considering that the MAJORITY of the stimulus money has yet to even been spent, your point is invalid.

Now you know, and knowing is half the battle G.I. Joe. :rofl
 
TheNextEra said:
No it isn't, but Obama could create 1,000,000 new jobs and you would bitch about how he didn't create 1,000,001 because you hate Obama.

The ODS is in full bloom here.
Click to expand...
I thought personal attacks were out of order.
 
formerroadie said:
You obviously didn't keep reading because you took the first two paragraphs at face value. What about this part of your OP?



So, why can't the number of jobs be the criteria for projects getting first dibs? It's because there are times when the priorities have to be about safety of the infrastructure rather than number of bodies applied to said work. Our infrastructure is badly in need of repair and given that we don't even have enough in the stimulus to shore up all our infrastructure, there has to be criteria for what needs most attention now.

So, it is about job creation, just not about the number of bodies on the ground given a priority in the system of infrastructure.
Click to expand...

Here's the key aspect of the article:

“The goal of the Recovery Act is to support projects that will create jobs now and usher in a clean energy economy that will also create jobs for years to come,” the spokeswoman, Jen Stutsman, said in a written statement.
Click to expand...

The reason they aren't going to use job creation as the main criterion for stimulus spending is so they can fund their "green revolution", even if we don't want or need it. Policy through imperial edict.
 
American said:
I thought personal attacks were out of order.
Click to expand...

You're absolutely right (my apologies if you thought "Bitch about" is an insult) you and the other Obama haters will COMPLAIN about Obama no matter what he does, even if it is good.

That better?
 
TheNextEra said:
Considering that the MAJORITY of the stimulus money has yet to even been spent, your point is invalid.

Now you know, and knowing is half the battle G.I. Joe. :rofl
Click to expand...
Yes, that's why I used the term "will never" instead of "hasn't".

Reading comprehension is half the battle NextEra!
 
G.I. Joe said:
Yes, that's why I used the term "will never" instead of "hasn't".

Reading comprehension is half the battle NextEra!
Click to expand...

Ahhh so you were just being partisan, and will hate Obama no matter what he does even if it is good, got it.

Thanks for letting us know and knowing is half the battle G.I. Joe!!!! :rofl
 
Ethereal said:
Here's the key aspect of the article:

The reason they aren't going to use job creation as the main criterion for stimulus spending is so they can fund their "green revolution", even if we don't want or need it. Policy through imperial edict.
Click to expand...

While I will disagree with your partisan hackery and need to blame Obama for anything he does, no matter how well he does it, your premise that we don't need a green revolution is foolish and short sighted.
 
TheNextEra said:
Ahhh so you were just being partisan, and will hate Obama no matter what he does even if it is good, got it.

Thanks for letting us know and knowing is half the battle G.I. Joe!!!! :rofl
Click to expand...
Really? That's you got out of my post? So let me get this straight, reading a bill and coming to the conclusion that it will not be beneficial to the economy makes me partisan?
With your logic, anyone who disagrees with this administration is biased and unwilling to give Obama a chance under any circumstances. It's understandable, though. If I were in your position, I would do everything possible to deflect attention away from this obscene misuse of taxpayer money as well. I guess if you can't defend, attack.
 
TheNextEra said:
Considering I did not approve of the way he did the bailout, your point is idiotic accusing me of being in a partisan tent.
Click to expand...

You cant have it both ways. Blind worship of dear leader and poorly veiled threats is what put ridiculous packages through congress in the first place.
Obama is following old policies nearly in lock step and still the idolatry continues.
 
G.I. Joe said:
Really? That's you got out of my post? So let me get this straight, reading a bill and coming to the conclusion that it will not be beneficial to the economy makes me partisan?
Click to expand...

Nope not just this post but many of your anti-liberal posts in addition to this one. Sorry, but yes, you are partisan.
 
TheNextEra said:
Nope not just this post but many of your anti-liberal posts in addition to this one. Sorry, but yes, you are partisan.
Click to expand...
Of course I am. I have political leanings just like everyone else here. So that means that I can't view anything objectively? And what does that have to do with the topic at hand?
 
G.I. Joe said:
Of course I am. I have political leanings just like everyone else here. So that means that I can't view anything objectively? And what does that have to do with the topic at hand?
Click to expand...

I have yet to see you observe things OBJECTIVELY, only partisan. That is my point.
 
TheNextEra said:
I have yet to see you observe things OBJECTIVELY, only partisan. That is my point.
Click to expand...
Ahhhh, I see. So since my views are consistently conservative, I am biased. Gotcha.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom