Is anyone else tired of this phrase?
“…save or create…”
As in “I will save or create 3 million jobs” or more recently “I will save or create 4 million jobs.”
Since when do “save” and “create” mean the same thing? Either you plan to save jobs or or you plan to create jobs. One means there will be 3 or 4 million jobs that aren’t eliminated. The other means that the Obama Administration will increase our current employment rolls by 3 or 4 million.
How exactly do you measure “jobs that aren’t eliminated?” It seems to me that as long as 3 or 4 million Americans are still working at the end of Obama’s term, he can claim he kept his promise of saving jobs. Not an overly ambitious goal, is it?
Currently there are about 154 million people working in the US. For Obama to keep his promise, total employment must fall somewhere between 3 million and 158 million.
How stupid does Team O and the media think we are?
Subscribe to Jane’s daily email.
Subscribe to Jane Q. by RSS Feed
15 Comments
January 10, 2009 at 5:28 pm
I guess finally you came to understand that you simply can’t get by with only two functioning brain cells …
January 10, 2009 at 5:43 pm
I would pit Obama’s intelligence against your intellectual or Bushes intelligence any day.
January 10, 2009 at 5:51 pm
I voted for him, and I’m a liberal. But, I still find this post amusing and right on the button. Good job. How can you assume that if GM went out of business all of the employees would remain unemployed indefinitely? You can’t save jobs by saving a company unless you can prove that the workers are only good in their current capacity and couldn’t fetch a job at any income anywhere else.
With that said this at the very most a bipartisan empty cliché that dates back to the 70s’:
http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22create+or+save+jobs%22+OR+%22save+or+create+jobs%22&btnG=Search&hl=en&um=1&scoring=t
January 10, 2009 at 6:18 pm
Parse, parse. Who’s there? Obama.
Obama who? Obama money printer.
Republican Jane: will they bailout plastic surgeons?
Examine the wrinkles in the shrinking cosmetic surgery biz!
Read – ECONOMY SAGS, BUSTLINES DROOP at:
andeeroo.wordpress.com/
January 10, 2009 at 10:26 pm
Jazz316:
I would pit Obama’s intelligence against your
intellectualintelligence orBushesBush’s intelligence any day.Um…ditto.
January 10, 2009 at 10:31 pm
It is such a ridiculous exercise in semantics.
I admire your willingness to acknowledge the emptiness of his claim.
When I encounter someone thoughtful on the other side of the political fence, it encourages me to not be such a raving partisan.
Blogging can sometimes bring out the worst in an ideologue such as myself.
Thanks for your candor.
Jane Q.
January 10, 2009 at 11:37 pm
It could have been worse. He could have said “this is the moment we save or create 4 million jobs”. Enjoyed your reply to jazz316…
January 11, 2009 at 2:46 am
Intellectual /ntlektjl/ a. & n. LME. [L intellectualis, f. intellectus INTELLECT: see -UAL.] A adj. 1 Of or pertaining to the intellect or understanding; that is describable as such in relation to the intellect. LME. b That appeals to, engages, or requires the exercise of the intellect. M19. 2 (Able to be) apprehended only by the intellect; non-material, spiritual. LME-E18. 3 a Characterized by or possessing understanding or intelligence. obs. exc. as in sense b. L15. b Possessing a high degree of understanding or (esp. analytic) intelligence; given to the exercise of the intellect. Also, of, pertaining to, or characteristic of an intellectual or intellectuals. E19. B n. 1 The intellect, the mind. L16-M17. 2 In pl. a Intellectual powers, mental faculties; wits, senses. arch. colloq. E17. b Things pertaining to the intellect. Now rare or obs. M17. 3 A person of superior (or supposedly superior) intellect, esp. one having an analytic mind; an enlightened person. M17.intellectuality n. [late L intellectualitas] the quality or state of being intellectual; intellectual power or ability: LME. intellectually adv. LME. intellectualness n. (rare) M19
———————————————————
Excerpted from Oxford Talking Dictionary
Copyright © 1998 The Learning Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
January 11, 2009 at 12:26 pm
“How stupid does Team O and the media think we are?” As long as they keep getting away with lies and distortions they will continue to lower their estimation. On the other hand, how many newspapers will have to go broke before the press becomes willing to take an honest look at themselves?
January 11, 2009 at 3:31 pm
Your argument is pointless, since it is based on a narrow and frankly odd interpretation of the statement. I can’t imagine how you could read that sentence and assume it was intended to equate saving and creating. Obviously it is either save or create based upon given and differing situations. It strikes me as typical of people of your political persuasion to do this type of restrictive interpretation thus forcing the argument within the limits you’ve created. Here’s how it goes: you first interpret a statement in an illogical and narrow way, and then force the argument to accept your silly premise before moving forward. What does this accomplish? Or is it really just poor thinking?
January 11, 2009 at 3:57 pm
What strikes me as typical of people of your political persuasion is the insistence that words have many meanings, depending upon the intent of the speaker, and these meanings can include the exact opposite of what the speaker said. But, that could all be wrong too, depending on what your definition of “is” is.
“Obviously it is either save or create based upon given and differing situations.” Fine and good, but people should understand that Barack Obama is promising that under his stimulus plan American employment rolls will be somewhere between 3-4 million and 157-158 million. Unless, of course, you have a new definition for the words “save” and “create.”
While broad interpretation has its place, there is no room for nuance in actual promises made by a President in support of a proposed plan. When making promises to the American public, Barack Obama needs to state clearly what he means. In this case, if he means what he is saying, the statement is fatuous.
And clearly, Team O believes we are all stupid enough to swallow this promise eagerly. In the end, people will either be insulted by his promise’s obvious emptiness, or become apologists for Obama, crying aloud that his detractors aren’t sophisticated enough to grasp Obama’s nuanced rhetoric.
January 11, 2009 at 3:58 pm
Or maybe the underlying problem is you don’t like the vagueness. You’d like a hard, fast number. You’d like O to be the magical savior republicans mock dems for supposedly believing him to be. You want him to be able to predict the future with complete certainty. Perhaps you are enamored of the current model where the president assumes an air of unimpeachable certainty and then lies through his teeth even when results have long proven him wrong. But certainty is comforting isn’t it?
January 11, 2009 at 4:28 pm
That’s exactly what I was saying, Flash. My lord, you are brilliant. Stop by to read the mind of someone you have never met anytime!
Generalize much?
January 12, 2009 at 8:12 pm
Gilmour Poincaree:
To your first post on this thread, I would rather have 2 of JQR’s brain cells than your ZERO.
Oh, nice use of the dictionary to drive home your “point.”
January 12, 2009 at 8:27 pm
No problem … you can keep your zero brain cells to yourself …