OK, so NOW are you ready to impeach this joke of a President? NO! There are still idiots and sheep out there who want to hand our health care over to the government! :bash
And remember, this including the phantom 'saved jobs'. Take those out and it is way higher!!
The economic impact of the “stimulus,” released on Friday, July 1, provides further evidence that President Obama’s economic “stimulus” did very little, if anything, to stimulate the economy, and a whole lot to stimulate the debt.
The report was written by the White House’s Council of Economic Advisors, a group of three economists who were all handpicked by Obama, and it chronicles the alleged success of the “stimulus” in adding or saving jobs. The council reports that, using “mainstream estimates of economic multipliers for the effects of fiscal stimulus” (which it describes as a “natural way to estimate the effects of” the legislation), the “stimulus” has added or saved just under 2.4 million jobs — whether private or public — at a cost (to date) of $666 billion. That’s a cost to taxpayers of $278,000 per job.
Furthermore, the council reports that, as of two quarters ago, the “stimulus” had added or saved just under 2.7 million jobs — or 288,000 more than it has now. In other words, over the past six months, the economy would have added or saved more jobs without the “stimulus” than it has with it. In comparison to how things would otherwise have been, the “stimulus” has been working in reverse over the past six months, causing the economy to shed jobs.
Of course the jobs pay >$250K, how else can we collect enough income tax revenue back from the money!
Consumer spending is weak because consumers are not buying Mcmansions and using credit cards, re-fis, and home equity loans like they were in the go-go years. That credit binge is not likely to return any time soon either. Who has confidence in an economy teetering on Trillions in public debt that nobody has a clue about fixing?
And cars last alot longer... 200-300K miles is the norm, not 100K miles.
Well, I know that LJ and a few other liberals are on here now. I didn't expect them to respond to the indefensible, but I would love to hear what you are thinking about this revelation, and remember, this is from Obama's own economic team. Should Obama still be laughing at this?
$278,000 for a $40,000 job, and over the past six months, the economy would have added or saved more jobs without the “stimulus” than it has with it. In comparison to how things would otherwise have been, the “stimulus” has been working in reverse over the past six months, causing the economy to shed jobs.
I think it is pretty well established that the Stimulus was a huge failure. But many of us knew that from the start. About the only thing it saved was some state and local jobs, that are now being cut anyway after the stimulus ended and the states have to balance their budgets without help from the Feds.
If you want to be, press one. If you want not to be, press 2
Republicans are red, democrats are blue, neither of them, gives a flip about you.
The libs will be dead silent on this one. I love Nancy the nutjob's quote where she said Obama was a job creator from day one. I'll bet I could create THREE jobs also if someone gave me a million dollars to spend.
The left is angry because they are now being judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.
Not that I want to defend the stimulus, but here is where I think that article is misleading. They take the simplistic approach of taking the total money spent, and divide it by the number of jobs they claim to of created.
As an example, suppose you want to build a $400,000 home. You hire four unemployed contractors to build your home. From a simplistic view, that cost you $100,000 per job you "created". But is that really what those contractors made?
No. They had to pay for the materials to build your home. That helped the companies that made those materials, and indirectly contributed in some way to other people's jobs. They might of also hired subcontractors to do more specialized tasks like lay your foundation or put on your roof. You indirectrly helped the subcontractors keep their jobs.
And in the end, you hopefully have a house which didn't exist before. So you've added to the infrastructure of your community, just as a road project funded by the stimulus (like Shaeffers Crossing) ends up adding to the infrastructure and hopefully improves the community.
So is it fair to simply divide the money "spent" by the number of jobs claimed to be created? In my example, the contractors made no where near $100,000 each. And one other point is that $168 billion of the $666 billion "spent", was in the form of tax cuts (see table 2 of page 7 of the report).
Unless I'm missing something, my main arguements about the stimulus would center more on how it's failed to significantly reduce the unemployment rate and the huge amout it has added to our national debt. Democrats sure criticized Reagan and Bush about the deficit, but it doesn't seem to matter now when they are in charge (nor did it matter to Republicans when they were in charge). Also the housing market is still a huge mess, and I don't see that the stimulus has helped that. And the jobs "created" are a number provided by the administration. Is it a fair and balanced number?
This is exactly what the government does best- squander our money.
The economy would have been no worse without the stimulis- in fact we would be better off without the debt it has left us all.
Add this onto the long list of damage our politicians are inflicting on the USA. Like the $30,000 toilet- government and it's bureaucratic waste are killing our economy.
BearMtnHIB wrote: The economy would have been no worse without the stimulis- in fact we would be better off without the debt it has left us all.
I don't know that it is true either way. Is there data that shows we would be no better off without all the TARP bills? Or would we be much worse off if they had not been passed?
I don't know that it is true either way. Is there data that shows we would be no better off without all the TARP bills? Or would we be much worse off if they had not been passed?
Kate- have you been hitting the bong this morning? This thread was started because Obama’s Economists say that ‘Stimulus’ has cost $278,000 per job.
This is the "data" you were wondering about. Do you still not know if this is true- or if we would be better off without it?
Sheesh!
In the private sector- a job does not cost anything to the taxpayer. A job by it's existance in the free market adds value to the economy- and adds to economic activity. This is proof that the government does not create jobs, and further proof that the money would have been better left in private hands where real jobs are created.
