formerexpat
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 12:09:05 GMT -5
Posts: 4,079
|
Post by formerexpat on Jul 4, 2011 22:05:07 GMT -5
|
|
handyman2
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 23:56:33 GMT -5
Posts: 3,087
|
Post by handyman2 on Jul 4, 2011 22:18:13 GMT -5
Jeez $278,000.00 per job. I wonder how much each worker got of that. Less than 1% I bet. Typical of the way government bureaucracy works from what I have seen. Waste, waste ,waste.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 5, 2024 0:13:04 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2011 22:30:27 GMT -5
‘Stimulus’ Has Cost $278,000 per Job
Spending money to stimulate the economy can work (but it doesn't always work). Again, the problem with this stimulus was that the items pushed through weren't designed to stimulate the economy or for that matter create jobs. They were just a bunch of pet items that democrats couldn't get passed on their own merit. Hell they couldn't even get them passed on the merits of other stuff that they were attached to.
About the only thing the "stimulus" did was take our country right up to the edge of it's debt ceiling. That backfired (big time) on President Obama & the democrats because voters elected enough Republican & Tea Party members to take away the control that they had in government. That means that now President Obama has to deal with his arch enemies the Republicans. Not good for him because it would take a great politician to get his way with them & President Obama is only a marginal politician.
|
|
|
Post by ed1066 on Jul 4, 2011 23:15:30 GMT -5
Liberals? What's the deal? Are Obama's economic advisors racists or what?
|
|
cereb
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 23, 2011 0:33:47 GMT -5
Posts: 3,904
|
Post by cereb on Jul 4, 2011 23:30:26 GMT -5
Liberals? What's the deal? Are Obama's economic advisors racists or what?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 5, 2024 0:13:04 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2011 0:34:08 GMT -5
Liberals? What's the deal? Are Obama's economic advisor's racists or what?
Really & truly when someone gets elected President they almost always surround themselves with the people that helped them get elected. Now one would assume that doing that would be a bad thing, but in a way it's not. By the time someone has been elected President those around him are experts in the field of politics. They (for the most part) & help guide the President at least from making an ass out of himself.
Then we have President Obama. He came from left field (so to speak) & those that surrounded him were maybe suitable for state politics. They should have never left the state because they just aren't up to the job. Now the left overlooks everything but to everybody else President Obama looks just as much an idiot as President Bush did. For someone that can read a TelePrompTer like President Obama can & yet he still making his self look stupid, well someones not doing their job. His screw ups are going to be equally as detrimental to his re election as his policies.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 5, 2024 0:13:04 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2011 8:42:33 GMT -5
Impossible to calculate... but nice try. A significant portion of the stimulus was given directly to the people in the form of tax breaks (Although actually I'm not sure how that counts? Since we've been told time and again that cutting taxes is not the same as spending money?... ) ... Anyway... its impossible to calculate, in the way the OP pretends to, how sustaining personal buying power impacted the economy. Also, the # of jobs sustained by the stimulus... Personally, there are lots of things i would have done differently.... NO TAX CUTS as part of the stimulus, and NO blanket grants to states to shore up their own short falls however they saw fit... LOTS more works projects and public infrastructure and energy development... But the OP is disingenuous at best...
|
|
|
Post by Mkitty is pro kitty on Jul 5, 2011 8:48:21 GMT -5
Well, since the stimulus didn't work, ergo tax breaks don't work. Check and mate. Do Conservatives play the race card or what?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 5, 2024 0:13:04 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2011 8:51:06 GMT -5
mkitty.... i'm trying to look, but can't find. Wasn't there a thread recently where some were up in arms at the idea that tax breaks = spending...
If so... if tax breaks do not = spending... then i guess the stimulus cost a whole LOT LESS than originally suggested.....
|
|
floridayankee
Junior Associate
If You Don't Stand Behind Our Troops, Feel Free to Stand in Front of Them.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:56:05 GMT -5
Posts: 7,461
|
Post by floridayankee on Jul 5, 2011 8:58:25 GMT -5
[quote author=formerexpat board=politics thread=10911 post=437728 time=1309835107 ]Obama's economists now agree with what many posters here have been saying for the past 2 years.
We've been left with pocket change. We can't afford 4 more years.[/quote] Hmmm....imagine that. Took 'em long enough. And these are the people that are going to "fix" health care.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 5, 2024 0:13:04 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2011 9:03:45 GMT -5
A significant portion of the stimulus was given directly to the people in the form of tax breaks Well, since the stimulus didn't work, ergo tax breaks don't work. Check and mate.
Tax breaks aren't usually (& in this instance aren't at all) a one time thing. They are on going & stimulate the economy over the LONG RUN. (I'm guessing you never played chess).
Quote:Are Obama's economic ad visors racists or what? Do Conservatives play the race card or what?
I tend to agree. His ad visors just tend to be one color which makes him look somewhat racists or at least open to attack on that issue. In reality I think he was just trying to pay back those that helped him get elected. To bad none of those around him are smart enough to keep him from making dumb mistakes. Maybe he was just going for surrounding himself with stupid.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 5, 2024 0:13:04 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2011 9:08:45 GMT -5
So old tex... you are agreeing that the 'calculation' in the OP is completely false... Spending it most on Democratic constituencies? ..... lmao ... Is this another way the Texas governer can say he doesn't want the stimulus... and then use it to shore up his own projects... I didn't realize that to get the making work pay credit, you had to mark 'Dem' on your tax return.... www.propublica.org/special/stimulus-plan-taxcut-listAgain, i ask, why is it tax cuts= spending for the stimulus.... and yet if when we suggest we can't afford all of Bush's tax cuts... tax cuts do not = spending??
|
|
handyman2
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 23:56:33 GMT -5
Posts: 3,087
|
Post by handyman2 on Jul 5, 2011 10:06:42 GMT -5
The way I understand it this money spent was above and beyound any tax cuts so that is not part of the picture. On top of that it created mostly part time jobs and now the unemployment numbers have gone back up. It was intended for those shovel ready jobs which there were not that many and not long term employment.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 5, 2024 0:13:04 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2011 10:13:43 GMT -5
So... you are just putting your own spin on the numbers now handy? ... That OP article was so biased, it isn't funny.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 5, 2024 0:13:04 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2011 10:16:50 GMT -5
So old tex... you are agreeing that the 'calculation' in the OP is completely false... No, I just said that I don't agree. Most things aren't black & white (kind of a pun . Just a comment on the Texas Governor. Texans in general do not trust government officials. If you want to check the ranking, I believe that our Governor has something like the 48th or 49th least power of all the states. He can pretty much wipe his own tush but he needs approval first. I wish we had the same thing going on in Washington.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 5, 2024 0:13:04 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2011 10:29:13 GMT -5
Ok... but if tax breaks are a long term thing... then how can you use $ from tax breaks in the calculations, and only apply them to the jobs that have already been created? ... contrary to handy's comment... there was little to nothing in the OP article that suggested how they came to the numbers... just taking the stimuls spent so far and dividing by the # of jobs created...
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 5, 2024 0:13:04 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2011 10:37:16 GMT -5
Acording to the report in the article cited by the OP... of the 666.3 billion already spent in the stimulus (the # used in the OP), 292.7 billion of it was in the form of tax reductions...
So... it must be nice for republicans to realize that the stimulus actually cost only slightly more than half what they originally thought... given that tax reductions do NOT = spending...
|
|
reasonfreedom
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 8:50:21 GMT -5
Posts: 1,722
|
Post by reasonfreedom on Jul 5, 2011 10:40:08 GMT -5
So old tex... you are agreeing that the 'calculation' in the OP is completely false... Spending it most on Democratic constituencies? ..... lmao ... Is this another way the Texas governer can say he doesn't want the stimulus... and then use it to shore up his own projects... I didn't realize that to get the making work pay credit, you had to mark 'Dem' on your tax return.... www.propublica.org/special/stimulus-plan-taxcut-listAgain, i ask, why is it tax cuts= spending for the stimulus.... and yet if when we suggest we can't afford all of Bush's tax cuts... tax cuts do not = spending?? If the info in the OP is false then his own economy helpers are giving false information, therefor I would not trust any solutions they have to provide if they can't collect information properly.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 5, 2024 0:13:04 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2011 10:45:37 GMT -5
No... the OP's article is false because it takes the #s in the report and manipulates them and spins them in a way that is inconsistent with the report (ie. inconsistent with reality). By all means, use the OP's source as a way to access the original report... that's about all its good for. But when you read the report... you will see the claims made BY THE OP's ARTICLE are false.... NOT the report.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,142
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 5, 2011 11:04:32 GMT -5
a bargain, compared to how much the Iraq and Afghanistan war have cost, per terrorist.
|
|
reasonfreedom
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 8:50:21 GMT -5
Posts: 1,722
|
Post by reasonfreedom on Jul 5, 2011 11:38:09 GMT -5
No... the OP's article is false because it takes the #s in the report and manipulates them and spins them in a way that is inconsistent with the report (ie. inconsistent with reality). By all means, use the OP's source as a way to access the original report... that's about all its good for. But when you read the report... you will see the claims made BY THE OP's ARTICLE are false.... NOT the report. Actually I just read the report and the mathematics is correct. I don't see the article saying that it cost that much per job directly. It doesn't matter if it went to tax cut or spending, that is the cost per job.
|
|
wyouser
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:35:20 GMT -5
Posts: 12,126
|
Post by wyouser on Jul 5, 2011 12:01:16 GMT -5
Fox news this am put the cost per job between 278,000 and over a million per job depending on which set of official numbers you use. It was suggested the actual amount per job is somewhere between these two numbers.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 5, 2024 0:13:04 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2011 12:04:56 GMT -5
lol... so, you're good with the math... ok.
And you are willing to concede that tax cuts are spending. Also good to know.
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Jul 5, 2011 12:09:15 GMT -5
Was Obama buying votes by giving away $Billions in stimulus?? Two years ago our unemployment rate was @8% and today it is @9% so will more Stimulus do much good?? Obama has to work on the unemployment rate or else he will have some explaining to do in 1 1/2 years if it is still @8% to @9%..
|
|
|
Post by Mkitty is pro kitty on Jul 5, 2011 12:12:04 GMT -5
That's nice. Did you know Nova didn't sell well for Chevrolet in Spanish speaking areas and bleu cheese contains the fungus that makes Penicillin? Still up: Well, since the stimulus didn't work, ergo tax breaks don't work. Guess all you want. I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion, but I'm used to these types of statements. Let's put another layer of the silly "The Stimulus didn't work!!!1!" game: "Texas Used Stimulus to Cover 97% of Its Deficit" www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/01/texas-used-stimulus-to-cover-97-of-its-deficit/70077/Oh look, Rick Perry, the Conservative darling used stimulus money to pay for his debt. But if the stimulus didn't work, who's to blame? Or did the stimulus work? Or maybe it worked and didn't work. And after paying off the previous debt, Perry will still have $12B deficit. Is that good because it's Perry and no stimulus money will be used to pay it or bad because it's a deficit? I imagine that paying off debt doesn't really create very many jobs (maybe a few people to handle the transactions). So was Perry bad for paying off the debt and he should have created jobs instead? No wonder he was so mad at the stimulus. "Darn me for not creating jobs!!!!" Since the states were given control over how at least some of the stimulus, I could only conclude that was a good bad thing to do. Or was it a bad good thing? Darn you dems and your pet items like letting Perry pay off Texas debts!!!! Wait, I thought dems were all about spending and not paying off debts. But since debt was paid and jobs were not created at Perry's behest, were the dems not dems? Should they have told him to spend it on jobs, but not debt? Or maybe the dems were tea Party people and demanded they pay debt, which was bad because it was the stimulus (assumed to be bad) and didn't create jobs, so are the Tea party people and Perry good bad Democratic Republican people that do don't want jobs and do don't want to pay off debts with stimulus, some of which consists of tax cuts that are aren't spending? CONgratulations, CONservatives, this so wins the medal in being CONtradictory, you get a special Rhodium medal (it's $2500 / troy oz., while platinum is only $1780 / troy oz.) ( www.curiousnotions.com/home/metals.asp ) (for Shirina only: think how much the heavy metal rHondaum would be worth)
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Jul 5, 2011 12:50:47 GMT -5
That's nice. Did you know Nova didn't sell well for Chevrolet in Spanish speaking areas and bleu cheese contains the fungus that makes Penicillin? Still up: Well, since the stimulus didn't work, ergo tax breaks don't work. Guess all you want. I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion, but I'm used to these types of statements. Let's put another layer of the silly "The Stimulus didn't work!!!1!" game: "Texas Used Stimulus to Cover 97% of Its Deficit" www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/01/texas-used-stimulus-to-cover-97-of-its-deficit/70077/Oh look, Rick Perry, the Conservative darling used stimulus money to pay for his debt. But if the stimulus didn't work, who's to blame? Or did the stimulus work? Or maybe it worked and didn't work. And after paying off the previous debt, Perry will still have $12B deficit. Is that good because it's Perry and no stimulus money will be used to pay it or bad because it's a deficit? I imagine that paying off debt doesn't really create very many jobs (maybe a few people to handle the transactions). So was Perry bad for paying off the debt and he should have created jobs instead? No wonder he was so mad at the stimulus. "Darn me for not creating jobs!!!!" Since the states were given control over how at least some of the stimulus, I could only conclude that was a good bad thing to do. Or was it a bad good thing? Darn you dems and your pet items like letting Perry pay off Texas debts!!!! Wait, I thought dems were all about spending and not paying off debts. But since debt was paid and jobs were not created at Perry's behest, were the dems not dems? Should they have told him to spend it on jobs, but not debt? Or maybe the dems were tea Party people and demanded they pay debt, which was bad because it was the stimulus (assumed to be bad) and didn't create jobs, so are the Tea party people and Perry good bad Democratic Republican people that do don't want jobs and do don't want to pay off debts with stimulus, some of which consists of tax cuts that are aren't spending? CONgratulations, CONservatives, this so wins the medal in being CONtradictory, you get a special Rhodium medal (it's $2500 / troy oz., while platinum is only $1780 / troy oz.) ( www.curiousnotions.com/home/metals.asp ) (for Shirina only: think how much the heavy metal rHondaum would be worth) Again, this is the verdict of Obama’s own Council of Economic Advisors, which is about as much of a home-field ruling as anyone could ever ask for. In truth, it’s quite possible that by borrowing an amount greater than the regular defense budget or the annual cost of Medicare, and then spending it mostly on Democratic constituencies rather than in a manner genuinely designed to stimulate the economy, Obama’s “stimulus” has actually undermined the economy’s recovery — while leaving us (thus far) $666 billion deeper in debt. The actual employment numbers from the administration’s own Bureau of Labor Statistics show that the unemployment rate was 7.3 percent when the “stimulus” was being debated. It has since risen to 9.1 percent. Meanwhile, the national debt at the end of 2008, when Obama was poised to take office, was $9.986 trillion (see Table S-9). It’s now $14.467 trillion — and counting. All sides agree on these incriminating numbers — and now they also appear to agree on this important point: The economy would now be generating job growth at a faster rate if the Democrats hadn’t passed the “stimulus.” www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-s-economists-stimulus-has-cost-278000-job_576014.htmlwww.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/cea_7th_arra_report.pdf
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 5, 2024 0:13:04 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2011 13:22:58 GMT -5
Did you read the actual report PI?
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Jul 5, 2011 13:33:28 GMT -5
Did you read the actual report PI? Among the key findings of the study are the following: Following implementation of the ARRA, the trajectory of the economy changed significantly. Real GDP began to grow steadily starting in the third quarter of 2009 and private payroll employment increased on net by 1.7 million from the start of 2010 to the end of the first quarter of 2011. (From the employment trough in February 2010 to May 2011 private payroll employment increased by 2.1 million.) The two established CEA methods of estimating the impact of the fiscal stimulus suggest that the ARRA has raised the level of GDP as of the first quarter of 2011, relative to what it otherwise would have been, by between 2.3 and 3.2 percent. These estimates are very similar to those of a wide range of other analysts, including the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office. CEA estimates that as of the first quarter of 2011, the ARRA has raised employment relative to what it otherwise would have been by between 2.4 and 3.6 million. The Recovery Act was designed to be temporary. The amount of stimulus outlays and tax reductions has begun to decline and, as discussed in previous reports, as it does so the impact on the level of GDP and employment will lessen over time. Here's the conclusion by the Council of Economic Advisers...so you can draw you own conclusion IV. CONCLUSION This report continues the Council of Economic Advisers’ assessment of the economic impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and the response of the economy as of the first quarter of 2011. The analysis indicates that the Recovery Act has played a significant role in the turnaround of the economy that has occurred over the past two years. Real GDP reached its low point in the second quarter of 2009 and has been growing solidly since then, in large part because of the tax cuts and spending increases included in the Act. Employment, after falling dramatically, began to grow again on a sustained basis through 2010. As of the first quarter of 2011, the report estimates that the Recovery Act raised employment by 2.4 to 3.6 million jobs relative to what it otherwise would have been. As discussed in previous ARRA reports, measuring the impact of policy on growth and employment is inherently difficult because no one can observe directly what would have occurred without the policy. But multiple methodologies and multiple sources point to similar estimates of ARRA’s impact on the economy.
|
|
ugonow
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 3,397
|
Post by ugonow on Jul 5, 2011 13:42:37 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Mkitty is pro kitty on Jul 5, 2011 14:37:36 GMT -5
Well, let's look at real facts. data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000Obama was sworn in January of 2009, (7.8% unemployment) the stimulus was passed in February of 2009 (8.2% unemployment). That 7.3 percent was December 2008, before Obama was elected. Isn't it rather dishonest to blame Obama's stimulus bill starting with a number before he was even elected? Even after the ink is wet it takes at least a few months to kick in (by May it was at 9.4 percent) Or with a more realistic perspective, it dropped from about 9.4% (can we at least give it a couple months?) to 9.1 percent. Or we can play silly high/lowballing games. Did you know that unemployemt in August 1961 (the month Obama was born) was 6.6% ( research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/UNRATE.txt ) Darn you Obaaaammmaaaaaa!!!!1! And who knows? Without the stimulus it could be over 10%. Or it could be slower. Even if it does worse with the stimulus, doesn't mean it would have done better without it. Formally it's the fallacy of denying the antecedent. (A --> B ; ~A --> ~B), or maybe correlation/causality (how did the stimulus cause unemployment to rise?).
|
|