PDA

View Full Version : Obama’s Economists: ‘Stimulus’ Has Cost $278,000 per Job



mikesilvia
07-05-2011, 10:36 AM
Here's some interesting numbers:

The actual employment numbers (http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000) 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/fy10/pdf/fy10-newera.pdf)). It’s now $14.467 trillion — and counting. (http://www.usdebtclock.org/)
(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.”

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-s-economists-stimulus-has-cost-278000-job_576014.html

INTIMADATOR2007
07-05-2011, 06:57 PM
No obama backers on this one ?

redsoxx11
07-05-2011, 07:14 PM
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/cea_7th_arra_report.pdf



The analysis indicates that the Recovery Act has raised the level of GDP substantially relative to what it otherwise would have been and has saved or created between 2.4 and 3.6 million jobs as of the first quarter of 2011.


GDP was falling rapidly from the third quarter of 2008 to the first quarter of 2009, but then began to reverse course quickly after the passage of the Recovery Act. After declining at an annual rate of 4.9 percent in the first quarter of 2009, GDP fell at a rate of 0.7 percent in the second quarter, and then rose at a rate of 1.6 percent in the third quarter and 5.0 percent in the fourth. The improvement in growth of 9.9 percentage points from the first quarter to the fourth (that is, the swing from growth at a -4.9 percent rate to growth at a 5.0 percent rate) was the largest over any three quarters since 1983


In the first quarter of 2009, the economy lost an average of 784,000 jobs per month. Job losses fell to 515,000 per month in the second quarter, 255,000 per month in the third, and 138,000 in the fourth. The economy began adding jobs in 2010, with average gains of 15,000 per month in the first quarter, 97,000 per month in the second quarter, 65,000 per month in the third quarter, and 141,000 per month in the fourth quarter.6 Solid job gains continued into 2011 as an average of 165,000 jobs were added per month in the first quarter.


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.


Maybe the writer of that article was reading the wrong report... Or maybe he extrapolated numbers out of context with the findings. I can't seem to find where the ecomomists said doing nothing would have worked also... how strange.

sanfran22
07-05-2011, 08:29 PM
I don't know, maybe here...(they didn't even use their own advice...hmmmm)
http://blogs.investors.com/capitalhill/images/stories/blog0606.png

redsoxx11
07-05-2011, 08:36 PM
Imagine how high it those unemployment actual numbers would be without the stimulus.. I'm willing to bet higher then 9.1%

sanfran22
07-05-2011, 08:36 PM
Or here..
http://pohdiaries.com/tag/stimulus/
I mean, we call it a success when we spend around 300k per job? I'd take my chances without. I wonder why they are talking about a 3rd stimulus if the last one was a roaring success......I think I'd take my chance with market correction rather then gov't interference considering the gov't had a large hand in getting us here.

redsoxx11
07-05-2011, 08:39 PM
I like how you are none stop complaining about a stimulous, that the report that article was written about shows it to be successful, but I haven't seen you make a PEEP about Bushes TARP bailout of banks...

sanfran22
07-05-2011, 08:42 PM
Imagine how high it those unemployment actual numbers would be without the stimulus.. I'm willing to bet higher then 9.1%
Even if so, I'd bet we'd be out of it faster rather then an artificial bump for alot of rediculous gov't spending on alot of public sector jobs. This administration loves putting bandaids on problems and blaming the other guy rather then fixing anything. He has just prolonged the issue.

sanfran22
07-05-2011, 08:43 PM
I like how you are none stop complaining about a stimulous, that the report that article was written about shows it to be successful, but I haven't seen you make a PEEP about Bushes TARP bailout of banks...
Bush is gone....I didn't realize this article addressed him....Fyi I wasn't for the first stimulus, but the jury is still out on the TARP as to if it helped avoid economic meltdown or not. I'd have rather not done it as well but it was a knee jerk reaction.