It's not like the CBO didn't warn us that this program was a horrific waste that would interfere with the trecovery... because they did, and the empty suit and his minions ignored them.
Obama’s Economists: ‘Stimulus’ Has Cost $278,000 per Job
The stimulus is now causing the economy to shed jobs.
12:07 PM, Jul 3, 2011 • By JEFFREY H. ANDERSON
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.
More: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.
.
I hope you are just having fun with numbers. Those are humorous conclusions because they are nonsensical. It would mean that either:
ReplyDelete(1) the "stimulus" money went overseas;
(2) into the bank accounts of the wealthy, or;
(3) big pay raises to already employed people.
The far simpler reality is that this economy would be in a depression without the stimulus, meaning unemployment would be 25%, and business stagnation.
As a Liberal I prefer the controlled crash approach that deficit spending allows, but I can understand a Conservative's "just get the crash over with" attitude.
Well Martin, the numbers seem to be coming from Obama's people... and I disagree with your conclusion.
ReplyDeleteFirst, a large amount of the money has yet to be spent. Second, a large amount of the money went to governments to keep government employees on the payroll.
Second, we have, perhaps, in real terms, a figure approaching 25% in unemployment when those who have given up are included in the figure, and if what we have doesn't amount to business stagnation, then I'd hate to see it in action.
When each job "created or saved" cost the American taxpayer $278,000 and our children's children for several generations will have to pick up the tab?
Give me the crash instead of our impending bankruptcy any day and twice on Sunday.
Like I said, I understand why Conservatives would rather just pull the plug.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I'm more optimistic that a controlled power-down is better than a melt-down. I'd rather it be more like war-time rationing than survivalist mentality.
But whatever, it sure won't be like the past - the future never is.
The current spending is going to break our country.
ReplyDeleteThe presidents debt commission said we will have to cut spending and reform our entitlements.
Without reforms, the spending will leave us on par with Afghanistan.
My view of entitlement reform is that while I do not like the idea, I recognize the dire need to do it.
I would rather wait a year or two longer to retire, or kick in a few extra bucks now, knowing that I will get a smaller piece of the pie. It seems preferable to waiting until I am ready to retire and learning there is no pie.
I do favor allowing everyone to pay the "fair share". That includes anyone with an imcome.
Allowing 40% of our population to pay no taxes despite using government services is a crock.
The current spending is going to break our country.
ReplyDeleteThe presidents debt commission said we will have to cut spending and reform our entitlements.
Without reforms, the spending will leave us on par with Afghanistan.
My view of entitlement reform is that while I do not like the idea, I recognize the dire need to do it.
I would rather wait a year or two longer to retire, or kick in a few extra bucks now, knowing that I will get a smaller piece of the pie. It seems preferable to waiting until I am ready to retire and learning there is no pie.
I do favor allowing everyone to pay the "fair share". That includes anyone with an imcome.
Allowing 40% of our population to pay no taxes despite using government services is a crock.