‘Stimulus’ Has Cost $278,000 per Job

‘Stimulus’ Has Cost $278,000 per Job (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Sanity -> ‘Stimulus’ Has Cost $278,000 per Job (7/4/2011 8:53:01 AM)
quote: Obama’s Economists: ‘Stimulus’ Has Cost $278,000 per Job When the Obama administration releases a report on the Friday before a long weekend, it’s clearly not trying to draw attention to the report’s contents. Sure enough, the “Seventh Quarterly Report” on 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. [image]http://www.weeklystandard.com/sites/all/files/imagecache/teaser-large/images/teasers/obama_walks_alone.jpg[/image] 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. In other words, the government could simply have cut a $100,000 check to everyone whose employment was allegedly made possible by the “stimulus,” and taxpayers would have come out $427 billion ahead. Full article at http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-s-economists-stimulus-has-cost-278000-job_576014.html

pahunkboy -> RE: ‘Stimulus’ Has Cost $278,000 per Job (7/4/2011 8:54:25 AM)
Right. I know they all voted for it. Bush, McCain and Hilary.

tazzygirl -> RE: ‘Stimulus’ Has Cost $278,000 per Job (7/4/2011 8:59:12 AM)
The Weekly Standard. [:D]

Sanity -> RE: ‘Stimulus’ Has Cost $278,000 per Job (7/4/2011 9:07:36 AM)
quote: The report was written by the White House’s Council of Economic Advisors, a group of three economists who were all handpicked by Obama...

Owner59 -> RE: ‘Stimulus’ Has Cost $278,000 per Job (7/4/2011 9:19:21 AM)
Trolling in off topic..... pretty lame. How many jobs did your trillion dollar Iraq mis-adventure create? Which precipitated your '08' financial disaster which precipitated your 700 billion bail-out which precipitated your two year bush recession?

tazzygirl -> RE: ‘Stimulus’ Has Cost $278,000 per Job (7/4/2011 9:24:15 AM)
The CEA employment estimates based on the projection approach, in contrast, are above the range of most other estimates for the past three quarters. This difference reflects two facts. First, the other estimates are largely based on economic models similar to that used in the CEA’s model approach. Second, the turnaround of employment has been faster than one would have expected given the behavior of the economy before the passage of the Recovery Act and standard estimates of the effects of stimulus. Thus, an approach that takes into account the actual behavior of employment tends to yield higher estimates than ones that rely on a historical multiplier approach. Furthermore, as noted above, a projection approach will include the effects of additional policies passed since the Recovery Act and thus is likely to continue to diverge from model based estimates over time. In light of the actual behavior of GDP, the estimates in Table 7 suggest that most forecasters believe that, in the absence of the Act, GDP would have declined sharply in 2009:Q2 and continued to decline in 2009:Q3, and that growth would have been considerably weaker in subsequent quarters than it actually was. Likewise, the estimates in Table 8 imply that most forecasters believe that jobs losses would have moderated much more slowly than they actually did over the course of 2009, and that substantial job losses would have continued into 2010. 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. http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/cea_7th_arra_report.pdf That is what the actual report says.

Musicmystery -> RE: ‘Stimulus’ Has Cost $278,000 per Job (7/4/2011 9:31:20 AM)
quote: In other words, the government could simply have cut a $100,000 check to everyone whose employment was allegedly made possible by the “stimulus,” and taxpayers would have come out $427 billion ahead. This is a common point about programs for years. And it's true. Problem is...it's obviously not feasible, politically or practically. Want a real quick deficit reducer? Lose the mortgage deduction--it subsidies the most expensive homes the most. Balance it with an equivalent tax cut for the lower brackets (i.e., this benefits the poor the most, but the rich get the equivalent break on that portion of their income).

juliaoceania -> RE: ‘Stimulus’ Has Cost $278,000 per Job (7/4/2011 9:33:53 AM)
This thread is so obviously in the wrong forum....

Musicmystery -> RE: ‘Stimulus’ Has Cost $278,000 per Job (7/4/2011 9:36:03 AM)
Yup. Another game.

Hillwilliam -> RE: ‘Stimulus’ Has Cost $278,000 per Job (7/4/2011 9:57:56 AM)
Assuming the 278K/job number is true (I have no reason to believe it isn't) the article left out one VERY important thing. They acted on the assumption that all the money was salaries paid. As most of the stimulus, at least in this area, was infrastructure they left out something that I see as a weeeeee bit important. Structural steel for Bridges (Our county got 2). Pavement for roads. Hundreds of miles of pipeline for various uses (water, sewer, gas) Miscellaneous construction materials. Heavy equipment (manufacturing of which created more jobs not included in the stimulus) Typically, labor is just a small percentage of total costs for a construction project. (I know, Ive been on both ends of the food chain there). Bottom line. Dumbass biased article that some people unthinkingly swallowed like a big rainbow gulping a size 20 pheasant tail.

mnottertail -> RE: ‘Stimulus’ Has Cost $278,000 per Job (7/4/2011 9:59:27 AM)
1/3 of the stimulus was tax cuts or breaks.

lockedaway -> RE: ‘Stimulus’ Has Cost $278,000 per Job (7/4/2011 10:14:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail 1/3 of the stimulus was tax cuts or breaks. Cite you data for that, mnottertail. It certainly was a tax break in the federal income tax, nor the payroll tax, no fcc line charges or the taxes we pay on our utilities. Cite your source...pie chart, whatever. There should not have been a stimulus. There is no such thing as "too big to fail". Let them fail, prosecute those that committed crimes, let the assets go to a receiver and allow other entrepreneurial Americans the chance to come in and run it right. Too big to fail nationalized their losses and screwed each and every one of us. But there is a whole range of further screwings that we are in line for.

Musicmystery -> RE: ‘Stimulus’ Has Cost $278,000 per Job (7/4/2011 10:18:05 AM)
For those interested, here's an interactive map... http://www.recovery.gov/Pages/default.aspx Scroll down, and move the mouse for state data. Click on the map for details, including zooming in by project and location.

lockedaway -> RE: ‘Stimulus’ Has Cost $278,000 per Job (7/4/2011 10:26:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery For those interested, here's an interactive map... http://www.recovery.gov/Pages/default.aspx Scroll down, and move the mouse for state data. Click on the map for details, including zooming in by project and location. It doesn't seem to explain what the tax benefits were and who received them. I notice that there are tax benefits that exceed entitlements by approximately 70 billion dollars. What I'm not so certain about is whether anyone should have received anything. I would also like to know what the entitlements actually were.

Musicmystery -> RE: ‘Stimulus’ Has Cost $278,000 per Job (7/4/2011 10:28:56 AM)
Pity you aren't interested in research. As for the map, we'll count out you out of "for those interested."

lockedaway -> RE: ‘Stimulus’ Has Cost $278,000 per Job (7/4/2011 10:56:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Pity you aren't interested in research. As for the map, we'll count out you out of "for those interested." Knowing you it is probably half the story anyway! LOLOLOL

Musicmystery -> RE: ‘Stimulus’ Has Cost $278,000 per Job (7/4/2011 11:23:02 AM)
You go looking for battles. You'll always find them. But you'll be fighting them against yourself. I posted information for those interested. Where you go from there is your trip. Bon Voyage.

Muttling -> RE: ‘Stimulus’ Has Cost $278,000 per Job (7/4/2011 2:56:30 PM)
Nothing to add other than to suggest folks read the report itself instead of relying on others to tell you what is said. Tazzygirl did a wonderful job of spoon feeding you. I see no point in repeating her efforts.... quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl The CEA employment estimates based on the projection approach, in contrast, are above the range of most other estimates for the past three quarters. This difference reflects two facts. First, the other estimates are largely based on economic models similar to that used in the CEA’s model approach. Second, the turnaround of employment has been faster than one would have expected given the behavior of the economy before the passage of the Recovery Act and standard estimates of the effects of stimulus. Thus, an approach that takes into account the actual behavior of employment tends to yield higher estimates than ones that rely on a historical multiplier approach. Furthermore, as noted above, a projection approach will include the effects of additional policies passed since the Recovery Act and thus is likely to continue to diverge from model based estimates over time. In light of the actual behavior of GDP, the estimates in Table 7 suggest that most forecasters believe that, in the absence of the Act, GDP would have declined sharply in 2009:Q2 and continued to decline in 2009:Q3, and that growth would have been considerably weaker in subsequent quarters than it actually was. Likewise, the estimates in Table 8 imply that most forecasters believe that jobs losses would have moderated much more slowly than they actually did over the course of 2009, and that substantial job losses would have continued into 2010. 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. http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/cea_7th_arra_report.pdf That is what the actual report says.

Page: [1]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875