-
What Did Arianna Huffington Know, and When Did She Know It?
May 15, 2013 | 1 comment
-
IRS Scandal Widens: Marriage Group Says IRS Leaked Information to ‘Political Enemies’
May 13, 2013 | 4 comments
-
Is Ed Markey in Trouble in Massachusetts Senate Race?
May 10, 2013 | 2 comments
-
What Are Terrorists Teaching Your Kids?
May 8, 2013 | 11 comments
-
U.S. Must Be Prepared to Face Unexpected Threats, Retired General Warns
April 26, 2013 | 5 comments
The Spectacle Blog
I suppose, inevitably, he would be required to get specific, but this is not smart politics:
President-elect Obama raised the jobs forecast for his stimulus plan from 3 million to as many as 4 million on Saturday, upping the ante of his economic blueprint for the second time in three weeks.
The president-elect also rebutted conservative claims that his plans would create new bureaucracies, saying 90 percent of the new jobs would be in the private sector, up from the “more than 80 percent” he claimed last weekend.
Revising expectations upward, at a time when every indicator points downward? Those numbers will come back to haunt him because, of course, it won’t work.
Also notice that the Politico reporters use the word “rebutted,” as if Obama had disproven the claims of his critics merely by gainsaying them. The honeymoon continues …
View all comments (30) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Robert Stacy McCain
http://spectator.org/blog/2009/01/10/bad-move-o
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Consternated Conferences
- Screwtape Talks Turkey
- Wincing at Cumberbatch
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Interloper| 1.10.09 @ 6:18PM
From the article: "Obama's address came a day after a Labor Department report showing the nation lost 2.6 million jobs last year, the most in a calendar year since the end of World War II. The unemployment rate for December was a jarring 7.2 percent."
The Obama economic advisors have raised the number of projected jobs as the record unemployment rolls have continued to grow.
The detractors' main attack is that the Obama administration will create bureaucracies to administer the recovery refunds. The Obama team rebuts that claim by asserting most job creation will be in the private sector and administered by public and private means already in place.
(McCain, to rebut means to offer evidence that effectively counters an allegation. It was used properly.)
Alan Brooks| 1.10.09 @ 6:58PM
but if one doesn't offer evidence but merely offers a prediction such does not effectively counter an allegation thus one isn't rebutting and is instead gainsaying.
Diamon| 1.10.09 @ 7:03PM
The latest news regarding "saving jobs" is that 20% of the boondoggle will go to states so they can keep their spending until the next time their blue in the face. That equates to anywhere from $155B to $200B, depending on the latest total which is seeing pressure to increase to $1T.
ConservativeWanderer | 1.10.09 @ 7:52PM
Interloper, I hereby rebut your definition of "rebut." Since I have given the same amount of hard evidence that you have in your "rebuttal" above, by your own definition I have successfully rebutted you.
Or does the unwritten portion of your definition state that only lefties can rebut that way, but conservatives cannot?
Alan Brooks| 1.10.09 @ 9:51PM
and its based on wealth that hasnt been created yet!
Phil Jones| 1.10.09 @ 9:56PM
I wonder who will get all those jobs, if there are any “new” jobs. At the current rate, we are importing about 1.7 million new workers per year via immigration. In two years, if we continue to import the same number of immigrants, there will be an additional 3.4 million new immigrant workers, a figure that doesn’t include illegal aliens.
Alan Brooks| 1.10.09 @ 9:59PM
in the long run latin americam emigration is more of a threat to us than the mideast.
Alan Brooks| 1.10.09 @ 10:01PM
pardon,
american not americam.
americam is a camera mounted on the wall separating the US from Mexico.
Phil Jones | 1.11.09 @ 3:29AM
Let us not forget that we also add something like 2 million or more native born workers to the workforce each year, what with people graduating college and high school to say nothing of the growing number who drop out of high school.
So, in addition to the 1.7 million aliens who are added to the workforce each year, we must add the 2 million new native born workers. And since 2.6 million existing workers lost jobs last year, that means we have many, many millions of job seekers.
Would it make sense to reduce the number of immigrants we allow to seek jobs in the USA, at least until the economy begins to create jobs again in sufficient numbers to absorb the newly unemployed and the new native workers?
Does anyone crunch the numbers on this issue? Is this an issue that courageous journalists such as those at American Spectator could possibly address? If journalists don’t touch this issue, can we expect politicians to come to terms with it?
Deborah | 1.11.09 @ 7:11AM
Hey Phil -- The Center for Immigration Studies does crunch those types of numbers. Their website address is www.cis.org. Their website seems to be having difficulty today, but when you can access it, they have a wealth of information, and you can even sign up for occasional updates. Mark Krikorian and his people do yeoman's work on immigration issues. Since their website seems to be non-functional at the moment, you can access some of Krikorian's columns here: http://author.nationalreview.com/?q=MjI0NQ==
Real American| 1.11.09 @ 10:33PM
Speaking of honeymoon, when these pie in the sky jobs don't materialize, the media won't be reminding everyone that Obama PROMISED them. They'll probably just blame George Bush.
Phil Jones| 1.11.09 @ 11:19PM
Thanks Deb, I’ll check that out. But it still strikes me that the purpose of such good think tanks as CIS is to enlighten the regular non-niche journalists and politicians.
This issue, the fact that we are importing more people to work here than we are creating jobs, seems to me like such a basic issue that if people are acting in good faith they would admit that we must change that policy. Left wing governments in Spain and Australia have admitted that a bad economy affects how many immigrant workers those countries can import. Are there any non-think tank types who are talking about this issue in America.
Phil Jones| 1.12.09 @ 5:23AM
Deborah: Here is an example of the problem with going to places like National Review for information on immigration. They used to host comments by JPOD (John Podhoretz), now editor in chief to be of Commentary. As you can see, he is very pro-open borders and I don’t see any evidence of his changing his mind just because we don’t have jobs for native folk any more than aliens (unless the aliens are intended to undercut natives in seeking, keeping an getting paid for their work).
THE FOLLOWING IF FROM NRO’S THE CORNER BLOG, THE DATE IS OCTOBER 2007:
Weasel Words [John Podhoretz]
No, Derb, I don’t consider the “illegal” in “illegal immigration” a weasel word — you do. I admit to having altered my view on the Bush proposal and others like it because of the strength of the arguments about the enormity of the illegal-immigration problem.
But the thing is, you acted to me in debate four years ago as though your problem was with its illegality when, in truth, it’s the immigration you oppose. And that is disingenuous, pure and simple. As for Mark Krikorian [head of the Center for Immigration Studies think tank], I take him at his word that he has long opposed immigration in all its forms — but again, this does mean that, like you, his opposition to “illegal immigration” is far less about the first word in the phrase than it is about the second. And that, I am happy to say, is so far from where American popular opinion is on the matter that it does suggest you are residing on the intellectual margin rather than in the policy mainstream.
That’s no criticism in itself — principled stands often force us to occupy unpopular positions. Just a note about the American perspective on its own history as a nation of immigrants (there, I said it, Mark; I know you hate it; but it is, O descendant of Izmir).
As for the Great Pause you admire so much, Derb, I consider it unmitigatedly a Great Disaster. The Great Depression was deepened, lengthened and made much more severe by the use of tariffs. That is not a matter of controversy. Restrictive immigration laws were the first tariffs imposed by this country in the 1920s, and like all tariff policies, they had terrible unintended consequences for the American economy and for the world — in the form of millions who perished in gas chambers, some of whom might have been saved from them under a different immigration regime.
Contra JPod [John Derbyshire]
I have indeed been mighty vexed by the ploy, much practiced by open-borders folk, of pretending that anger about illegal immigration is anger about immigration. They are separate issues; the conflating of them is a low debating trick, and I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised if I have complained loudly (i.e. IN CAPITAL LETTERS) in exchanges with you on the Corner when you have pulled that trick.
However, your charge that I have faked anger about illegal immigration as a cover for what really irks me—viz. immigration— needs some supporting evidence. You got any?
Pretty much everything 500 words or longer that I have written, for print or the web, this past ten years, is archived on my old web site. The rest is in the Corner archives. Somewhere in there, according to you, should be me saying, or implying: “I’m fine with the current levels, and current structure (e.g. chain migration, anchor babies) of legal immigration. It’s only illegal immigration I mind.”
I can’t ever remember thinking that, so it’s not likely I wrote it. You’re the one with the photographic memory for our exchanges, though. Let’s see what you’ve got.
Mopping Up [John Derbyshire]
Hoo-ee, I started some fight there, di’n I? And then ducked out just as the furniture started flying. Sorry about that—my dinner club met last night & I had to run for the train. Thanks to Mark, anyway, for covering my back.
Just a couple of points left unsaid in responses to JPod.
JPod believes the immigration policies of 1900 will work just fine for the U.S.A. today. Which other aspects of U.S. policy circa 1900 would you favor restoring, JPod? Zero welfare state? Male-only suffrage? The Tariff? There, I knew it—you’re a Ron Paul voter!
The 20th century was indeed a great one for the U.S.A., and its early years included the latter half of the Great Wave of European immigration. The 20th century also included the Great Pause of 1924-1965, when immigration was at very low levels. In your plan to reprise the 20th century, JPod, shall we get a Great Pause? When does it start?
And thanks, JPod, for letting us know that Commentary is to be edited by a guy who thinks “illegal” is “a weasel word.” That old rule-of-law stuff is so paleo.
Phil Jones | 1.12.09 @ 5:38AM
And Deborah, it doesn’t just stop with Commentary and the lack of discussion about the affects of immigration on the existing workforce. Powerful people have taken a position that is at odds with the best interests of the existing America population with regard to employment and even on national security, both “regular” crime and terrorism. Here are the comments of William Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard and frequent talking head on Fox News Channel.
Mr. Kristol states that he is a “liberal on immigration” and that he is “pro-immigration” and “soft on illegal immigration.”
The question remains, what about the well-being of the existing American workforce?
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/04/fns_roundtable_april_2.html
KRISTOL: I'm a liberal on immigration. I mean, I think the Bush approach is right. I think the Senate Judiciary Committee approach is right. If Congressman King thinks that it's a good idea to go around talking about branding people with the letter A for amnesty, if you (inaudible) see how, to use Brit's word, repellent that is of an image, you know, for, it's unbelievable. And the Republican Party will go down the tubes if it takes that position.
What's happened that's so terrible in the last 20 years? Is the crime rate up in the United States in the last 20 years? Is unemployment up in the United States in the last 20 years?
KRISTOL: And they've been contributing to the U.S. economy and not damaging U.S. society. There have been marches with Mexican flags, which conservative talk radio is up in arms about. I mean, are these people serious? Are these people -- what, are they going to be traitors to the U.S.? An awful lot of Mexican Americans, an awful lot of sons and daughters of illegal immigrants are fighting in the U.S. Army.
KRISTOL: I am pro-immigration, and I am even soft on illegal immigration.
Deborah | 1.12.09 @ 5:41AM
Yes, Phil, NRO has had many discussions pro and con on the immigration issue. However, Krikorian writes there too and has a book out now about how we should limit immigration (the legal kind) as well as crack down on the illegal kind. I agree, more discussion of this critical issue for our country must be done in the mainstream media. They just seem to go blindly along as we import those who will balkanize our country. Does our country have a death wish? Well, the regular folks out here don't (maybe I'm wrong, many regular folks did put Obama in office, so his "change" might be just that). However, they didn't have much choice on this particular issue since McCain pretty much wants open borders.
Deborah | 1.12.09 @ 5:48AM
Oh, and by the way, the www.cis.org site was once again up and running yesterday afternoon.
Kristol and the Weekly Standard and The Wall Street Journal are all on the side of legalizing the illegals. I'm not sure what planet they're on except that Kristol is more concerned about improving Republican numbers (which is debatable at best that this would be a result) and The Journal is more focused on business and how they're affected. But, who is focused on the country as a whole? Mark Krikorian is. His book is "The New Case Against Immigration -- Both Legal and Illegal" and he has data to back his claims. Here's a brief synopsis: http://cis.org/NewCase.
Bob| 1.12.09 @ 7:48AM
The problem with the immigration issue is the word "illegal". We all believe, I hope, that we are a country of laws. If immigration is really helpful to business in America, we should just make it easier for Latin Americans to enter this country legally.
From an analytical perspective, there are communities where unemployment has reached 13% and if you include "discouraged" workers, it jumps to 25%. It would be nice to make it easy for these people to get the jobs that Latin's are now getting. However, unfortunately there are barriers to this including the will to do "dirty" work and productivity issues.
From a business perspective, the illegality is a plus. If their workers are illegal, they will work harder and not complain. That's why businesses want the current system to remain but to be less onerous on them.
There is an element of racism here. Already, some large cities like Los Angeles have Hispanic majorities. Many whites across the country don't want the United States to become browner. You hear a lot about this with Republicans when they talk about our "heritage". This is partly a generational change -- younger people don't see race as a major issue -- they grew up with it. This is one of the things Republicans will need to address if they want to grow beyond being the party of older white people.
J David| 1.12.09 @ 10:20AM
I don't suppose God-hating liberals ever consider the actual REASONS all countries, not just the Imperialistic Capitalist-Racist-Swine of America, have for REGULATING the flow of foreign nationals into a country. Only mentally- morally handicapped don't recognize the gov't is supposed to protect ITS OWN citizens from higher population than its economy can support, or that the flow of diseased, illiterate, bandito DEPENDENTS, prone to drug smuggling and gang violence and single parenthood TAX the energies and funds of its over-taxed citizens? Surely even the soulless, anti-Gods realize everything in the world is not about evil white capitalist swine American racists hating "brown people"...or maybe not.
Phil Jones| 1.12.09 @ 6:57PM
Deborah, Unlike in the States, in the United Kingdom the press, even the ultra liberal BBC, reports that jobs are going to aliens instead of native born workers! In addition to the BBC, as copied below, the Telegraph, the Sun and the London Times as well as other papers have all reported on multiple occasions that aliens are taking most of the “new” jobs created in the UK for the last decade.
Why won’t even the “conservative” press report on this hot topic in the United States? Something is going on and it doesn’t smell right.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7069779.stm
More than half of new jobs created under Labour since 1997 have gone to foreign workers, it has emerged.
The government had previously claimed the majority of new jobs had been filled by British workers.
This appeared to be supported by figures released on Monday, despite the government admitting it had underestimated the number of migrants.
But it later put out a clarification suggesting 52% - or 1.1 million - of new jobs created had gone to migrants.
BBC economics editor Evan Davies said the figures were "a major admission for a government that has been going on about British jobs for British workers".
The government has always maintained migrant workers benefit the economy, but that the majority of new jobs are still being filled by the indigenous UK population.
Home Secretary Jacqui Smith earlier apologised for underestimating the number of migrant workers - but insisted "many more" jobs had been filled by British nationals than those coming from abroad since 1997.
Most new jobs created in last seven years have gone to immigrants, figures show
Dec 16 2008
FOREIGNERS have taken most of the jobs created in Britain in the last seven years, official figures revealed yesterday.
They said while most of the 1.3million new jobs had gone to workers from abroad since 2001, employment of Brits fell by 62,000 at the same time .
Pressure group Migration watch said nearly half a million jobs went to migrants from eastern Europe.
Chairman Sir Andrew Green said: "Rather than come clean about the effect of massive immigration on the prospects of British-born workers the Government have been spinning the statistics and camouflaging the true position with tough talk about immigration."
And shadow home secretary Dominic Grieve said: "This is yet more evidence that completely undermines Gordon Brown's unwise proclamation that he would deliver British jobs for British workers."
A Government spokesman said: "There are currently over half a million vacancies in the UK and over 90 per cent of the workforce is British."
Bob| 1.13.09 @ 8:23AM
Phil, you don't hear about illegal aliens taking jobs within the Republican party, and especially conservatives, because business gains from this. Illegal aliens can be paid less and will also complain less and work harder in low paid tasks. Since business supports Republicans more than Democrats in campaign giving, morality goes out of the window with Republican politicians in favor of campaign donations.
sidnee| 12.11.09 @ 12:41PM
jack wills
ugg mayfaire boots on sale