PDA

View Full Version : Stimulus’ Has Cost $278,000 per job!!



Sev
08-05-2011, 03:14 PM
Government efficiency effectively garrotting the country.

<span style="color: #000000"><span style='font-size: 17pt'>Obama’s Economists: ‘Stimulus’ Has Cost $278,000 per Job</span>
<span style='font-size: 14pt'>The stimulus is now causing the economy to shed jobs.</span>
12:07 PM, Jul 3, 2011 • By JEFFREY H. ANDERSON

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/...ob_576014.html

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” http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/defa...a_report.pdfon 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.
obama walks alone

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.

<span style="color: #CC0000"><span style='font-size: 20pt'>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.
</span></span>
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.

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) http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy...y10-newera.pdf. It’s now $14.467 trillion — and counting. http://www.usdebtclock.org/

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.”
</span>

Soflasnapper
08-05-2011, 04:00 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> 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.
</div></div>

That's simply an incompetent analysis from the Weekly Standard idjits. One we've seen touted here already by a fellow traveler.

That is not what those figures mean whatsoever, and getting it that wrong requires deliberate fraud.

ugotda7
08-05-2011, 04:48 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> 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.
</div></div>

That's simply an incompetent analysis from the Weekly Standard idjits. One we've seen touted here already by a fellow traveler.

That is not what those figures mean whatsoever, and getting it that wrong requires deliberate fraud. </div></div>

So then explain it all.

Soflasnapper
08-05-2011, 05:08 PM
It's not too complicated.

For one thing, it would say that there was no cost for equipment, fuel, and materials, for say, laying down a stretch of road. Is it remotely possible that the federal government can get zero cost equipment, fuel, and materials? Does anyone maintain that to be the case?

Then there was the largest middle class tax break of all time, 400 for an individual taxpayer, 800 for a married couple. For this arithmetic they tout to work, none of that could have taken place. And etc.

Only approx. 1/3 of the stimulus amount went to job creation.

As for it COSTING jobs, as it ended, its effects did tail off. But if taking an aspirin reduces a fever, we don't consider the return of the fever after the aspirin has worn off as caused by the aspirin. That would be idiotic. But that's what the Weakly Standard brainiacs say.

LWW
08-06-2011, 02:19 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It's not too complicated.

For one thing, it would say that there was no cost for equipment, fuel, and materials, for say, laying down a stretch of road. Is it remotely possible that the federal government can get zero cost equipment, fuel, and materials? Does anyone maintain that to be the case?

Then there was the largest middle class tax break of all time, 400 for an individual taxpayer, 800 for a married couple. For this arithmetic they tout to work, none of that could have taken place. And etc.

Only approx. 1/3 of the stimulus amount went to job creation.

As for it COSTING jobs, as it ended, its effects did tail off. But if taking an aspirin reduces a fever, we don't consider the return of the fever after the aspirin has worn off as caused by the aspirin. That would be idiotic. But that's what the Weakly Standard brainiacs say.

</div></div>

Oh that was incredibly lame ... even by your standards.

Soflasnapper
08-08-2011, 12:20 PM
Here's PoltiFact saying the same thing, at greater length:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Stimulus jobs cost taxpayers $278,000 each, GOP committee says in claim against Dem Wis. Rep. Ron Kind

Rating: False

Finding a Republican who likes President Barack Obama’s stimulus plan might be harder than finding a hair comb-over that’s truly convincing.

There almost certainly are no stimulus fans at the National Republican Congressional Committee, which is devoted to electing Republicans to the U.S. House of Representatives.

In January 2009, the NRCC criticized the stimulus allotment of $335 million for sexually transmitted disease prevention programs. Our colleagues at PolitiFact National rated that claim Mostly True.

In an October 2010 claim against then-U.S. Rep. Steve Kagen, D-Wis., the NRCC said the stimulus cost Wisconsin "77,000 jobs lost." We rated that one Pants on Fire.

And the attacks have continued.

In a July 5, 2011, news release, the committee singled out U.S. Rep. Ron Kind, D-Wis., saying "Kind’s stimulus cost taxpayers $278,000 per job."

Although the stimulus wasn’t his plan, Kind voted for it. Eleven House Democrats and all House Republicans voted against it.

As we noted in our NRCC item about Kagen, critics say the $830 billion cost of the stimulus has bought too few jobs, and unemployment has grown generally worse since Obama signed the measure into law in February 2009.

But the claim that the stimulus spent $278,000 for every job it created is striking.

Our colleagues at PolitiFact Ohio and PolitiFact Texas already have examined it.

PolitiFact Ohio found that the statistic originated in a blog posting on the website of The Weekly Standard, a conservative magazine. The posting by Jeffrey H. Anderson attributes the $278,000-per-job cost to "Obama’s economists." But to come up with that amount, Anderson did his own math with figures from a status report on the stimulus by Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers.

Citing the report, Anderson said the stimulus had added or saved just under 2.4 million jobs at a cost to date of $666 billion. He divided the $666 billion by 2.4 million jobs to come up with a rounded-up figure of $278,000 per job.

Here’s how our colleagues sized up two reiterations of the claim:

House Speaker John Boehner

PolitiFact Ohio weighed in after Boehner, an Ohio Republican, tweeted about the blog post. Our colleagues rated Boehner’s echoing of the $278,000 cost as False, pointing out that it lumps all of the various types of stimulus spending together.

Stimulus spending, as the Associated Press noted in a fact check of a similar GOP claim, pays not only for the worker but for material, supplies and that worker's output -- a portion of a road paved, for example.

Texas Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst

Dewhurst, a Republican, also tweeted about the blog posting. PolitiFact Texas found that of the $666 billion stimulus spending to date, 43 percent was spent on tax cuts for individuals and businesses; 19 percent went to state governments, primarily for education and Medicaid; 13 percent paid for government benefits to individuals such as unemployment and food stamps; and the remaining roughly 24 percent was spent on projects such as infrastructure improvement.

That underscores how stimulus money was spent on many things in addition to creating jobs. Our Texas colleagues rated Dewhurst’s claim False.

That’s two False ratings on the same claim.

We asked the NRCC if it had any evidence beyond the blog post cited by Boehner and Dewhurst to back up its version of the statement -- that "Kind’s stimulus cost taxpayers $278,000 per job." Spokeswoman Andrea Bozek cited various reports critical of the stimulus, but nothing to establish that the $278,000 figure is correct.

To review:

The National Republican Congressional Committee, like Boehner and Dewhurst, claimed that the federal stimulus cost $278,000 per job. The NRCC called it "Kind’s stimulus" because U.S. Rep. Ron Kind, D-Wis., voted for it. Our PolitiFact colleagues have twice ruled the claim False and the NRCC offered us no new evidence to consider. We rate its claim False, as well. </div></div>

LWW
08-08-2011, 01:44 PM
According to FACTCHECK (http://www.factcheck.org/2010/09/did-the-stimulus-create-jobs/) the $287K per job figure is wrong on several levels.

First off, the stimulus cost $787B and not $666B.

Second, it saved of created 3.3M jobs at the high estimate and 1.4M at the low estimate.

Using that data, at the very best it cost $238,484.85 per job "SAVED OR CREATED" ... up to a staggering $562,142.86 per job "SAVED OR CREATED" ... so, being that the average between the 2 estimates would be $400,313.85 per job "SAVED OR CREATED" and that the idea of a stat for jobs "SAVED OR CREATED" is unverifiable lunacy anyway. Well, you hould have just taken the $287K per job figure and been quiet.

Feel better now?

cushioncrawler
08-08-2011, 06:34 PM
What i would want to know iz what did theusofa get for that $287K.
If one jobber got say $50,000, then $237K went to something. What woz that something???

The $237K koodnt hav gone to wages, koz if it did then that would hav given more jobs.

The only way u kood waste or looz $237K iz if it went to something that didnt involve wages.
Lemmesee. U kood hav um, um, um -- nah, that haz wages in it.
Ok, letsee -- u kood hav uh, uh -- nah, that haz wages in it too.
Ah, well -- El Dubb must know something that duznt involve wages. I will ask him.
mac.

LWW
08-09-2011, 01:10 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cushioncrawler</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What i would want to know iz what did theusofa get for that $287K.
If one jobber got say $50,000, then $237K went to something. What woz that something???
mac. </div></div>

1 - The demokrookk party was paid.

2 - Contributors to the demokrookk party were paid.

3 - Unions which backed the demokrookk party were paid.

cushioncrawler
08-09-2011, 01:40 AM
Ok, but 1 and 2 and 3 dont end up sitting under a mattress for ever.
Soon, 1 and 2 and 3 will be spent on things -- and things meens wages.
mac.

Sev
08-09-2011, 05:53 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cushioncrawler</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Ok, but 1 and 2 and 3 dont end up sitting under a mattress for ever.
Soon, 1 and 2 and 3 will be spent on things -- and things meens wages.
mac. </div></div>

100's of billions went overseas as loans to bail out banks amongst other things. We wont see it back in the US.

cushioncrawler
08-09-2011, 04:01 PM
Yes. Overseas = overseas jobs, rather than usofa jobs.
In a way, profit duznt direktly = jobs.
Investment profit likewize.

But in a way profit and investment and interest = jobs, but probly indirektly, ie the velocity of the money aint great.

But if the velocity of de money iz in the direktion of China then that = chineze jobs.
mac.