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

[DarrinS]

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x...nal-points.jpg

That's the graph picture link. My man WC is chock full of credible sources and that's why I love him.

A troll based on another poster? Talk about obsessed.

[ElNono]

I disagree. I believe the tax cuts started in 2003 and we had a rise in revenue as a percentage of GDP

Baloney. Receipts went down, in every measurable way. The only reason we had a strong GDP growth had to do with a property bubble that we know how it ended.

Call it the "Fear factor."

Please don't tell me you think business people do not assess what they think will happen in the future. Democrats did nothing but promise Americans not so well of to take from those who are well off. That is the trigger to our recession.

More baloney and revisionist history. Business didn't assess unfunded programs such as Medicare part D which are nothing but a bas child of a GOP majority? How about trillions spent in wars which were not even budgeted? Tax cuts that were never offset with spending cuts? There was no "Fear factor" then?

And the recession was here way before the presidential election. The TARP was signed by Bush Jr in early October 2008, elections obviously didn't happen until November. The country had been on a recession for a while at that point.

We get you hate democrats. There's plenty of valid things to rag on about this administration. Among other things, sticking too far to the right.
There's no need to talk out of your ass.

[ElNono]

Look at this graph. There was higher revenue after the tax cuts, and a sudden drop after democrats took control of congress.

I thought we already determined those numbers are cherry picked? Who are you trying to fool exactly?

You already posted the receipts numbers and they were obviously down when taxes were cut...

[admiralsnackbar]

Your partisan revisionist history really is re ed. You can trace back the bubble that caused this recession as far back as Clinton, meaning it was coddled by both parties the same, when both parties have had control of both the legislative and the executive to this point.

Tell me you're ing kidding me, since you're only reiterating what I said.

[boutons_deux]

"I believe the tax cuts started in 2003"

wrong, along with invading Iraq for oil, the Repugs' other priority was to ram through, with Senate reconciliation, huge tax cuts for the wealthy (themselves) in June 2001 (while ignoring outgoing Clinton's and FBI/NSA warnings about terrorism, planes into buildings, etc).

Any economic growth after 2001 was due to the credit boom fueled by the banks pushing credit cards by the billions through the mail, and the housing bubbled created by criminal Greenspan's low interest prices and predatory/fraudulent lending. People were using their homes as ATMs. That cash created demand. NOT the tax cuts.

Real household income and job creation remained stagnant, while household debt reached historic levels, throughout the Repugs reign of error.

[ElNono]

Tell me you're ing kidding me, since you're only reiterating what I said.

He's stuck on stupid, perhaps some repe ion would cause the idea to finally sink in

[Wild Cobra]

A troll based on another poster? Talk about obsessed.

I find it rather disturbing myself.

[CosmicCowboy]

I'm sure that those Koreans that built my free Obama Carts really appreciated the stimulus...

[CosmicCowboy]

hashed out here:


Right-Wing Media Return To Using "Bogus" Math To Attack Stimulus

First, there's the bogus talking point that the Obama plan will cost $275,000 per job created. Why is it bogus? Because it involves taking the cost of a plan that will extend over several years, creating millions of jobs each year, and dividing it by the jobs created in just one of those years.

It's as if an opponent of the school lunch program were to take an estimate of the cost of that program over the next five years, then divide it by the number of lunches provided in just one of those years, and assert that the program was hugely wasteful, because it cost $13 per lunch. (The actual cost of a free school lunch, by the way, is $2.57.)

The true cost per job of the Obama plan will probably be closer to $100,000 than $275,000 -- and the net cost will be as little as $60,000 once you take into account the fact that a stronger economy means higher tax receipts. [

http://mediamatters.org/research/201107050015

So you are saying that if a guy gets a "stimulus" job and keeps it for 5 years that it should count as 5 jobs?

[Wild Cobra]

I'm sure that those Koreans that built my free Obama Carts really appreciated the stimulus...

LOL...

I wonder how all that tax credit was split. How much went to the US retailer, how much to the US shipping industry, and how much to Korea.

Have a guess?

[CosmicCowboy]

LOL...

I wonder how all that tax credit was split. How much went to the US retailer, how much to the US shipping industry, and how much to Korea.

Have a guess?

Well, I actually had to pay shipping myself from California to Texas but the carts were "free". I'm guessing the importer clipped around 20% off the top and the rest went out of the country.

[Wild Cobra]

Well, I actually had to pay shipping myself from California to Texas but the carts were "free". I'm guessing the importer clipped around 20% off the top and the rest went out of the country.

I wonder if about 75% of the stimulus went to other countries the same way it sis in your case.

Sound right? 5% of it for shipping?

[CosmicCowboy]

I wonder if about 75% of the stimulus went to other countries the same way it sis in your case.

Sound right? 5% of it for shipping?

Well, electric carts are big and heavy. Carts cost around $7000 each and shipping was $500 each, but that $500 was my money and not stimulus money.

[Wild Cobra]

Well, electric carts are big and heavy. Carts cost around $7000 each and shipping was $500 each, but that $500 was my money and not stimulus money.

Oh...

So you actually paid for the cart after all.

Here I thought you got it for free.

[CosmicCowboy]

Oh...

So you actually paid for the cart after all.

Here I thought you got it for free.

Huh?

I got a dollar for dollar tax credit on the carts (paid around $14,000 and took a $14,000 tax credit)

Basically all I was out of pocket after my refund was shipping from California...so yeah, I guess I "paid" $500 for them if you really want to nit pick.

[Wild Cobra]

Huh?

I got a dollar for dollar tax credit on the carts (paid around $14,000 and took a $14,000 tax credit)

Basically all I was out of pocket after my refund was shipping from California...so yeah, I guess I "paid" $500 for them if you really want to nit pick.

I was being funny. For got the Blue.

I guess the simultaneous worked. It got you to spend money on a California shipping company instead of supporting your local area. We all know that California needs the money more than you and your area does.

What a deal... $14,000 worth of free overseas goods just to give the California economy some of yours!

[RandomGuy]

Look at this graph. There was higher revenue after the tax cuts, and a sudden drop after democrats took control of congress.

More supply side fail.

Just because you keep repeating the same debunked idea over and over, mouse, does not make it true the 100th time if it was ty to begin with.

, you had a guy with a PhD in economics tell you it was ed up, just like the guy with the PhD in medicine who studies radiation told mouse he was full of .

Yet you both keep going.

Incredible.

Just to be clear:

Do you believe *this* stupidity too, or are you just playing devil's advocate?

[Wild Cobra]

I said years back that the democrats would cause economic failure. My predictions have come true as I said. Outside that, I don't care what you say.

I have been consistent on points that have come to pass.

Show me I'm wrong.

[RandomGuy]

Look at this graph. There was higher revenue after the tax cuts, and a sudden drop after democrats took control of congress.

The other thing is that you ignore the entire rest of the graph.

How do you explain the jump in revenues after the tax increases in the early 50's?

How do you explain then the lack of massive increase in revenues after the upper rate is cut rather substantially in the 60's and then in the 80's?

If your theory were to hold true, both things should be impossible, but there they are, right in the graph you yourself posted.

You did read the rest of the graph to see if it fit your theory right?

[RandomGuy]

I said years back that the democrats would cause economic failure. My predictions have come true as I said. Outside that, I don't care what you say.

I have been consistent on points that have come to pass.

Show me I'm wrong.

I said years back that washing my car would make it rain. I washed my car, then it rained. My prediction came true, as I said. Outside that, I don't care what you say.

I have been consistantly pointing out that washing my car makes it rain and that came to pass.

Show me I'm wrong.

[Wild Cobra]

I said years back that washing my car would make it rain. I washed my car, then it rained. My prediction came true, as I said. Outside that, I don't care what you say.

I have been consistantly pointing out that washing my car makes it rain and that came to pass.

Show me I'm wrong.

Predictable.

You know I'm right, so you sidetrack the issue.

[Wild Cobra]

The other thing is that you ignore the entire rest of the graph.

How do you explain the jump in revenues after the tax increases in the early 50's?

Very possible the end of WWII, with the return of soldiers working again and spending money here. Could be several other things too.

How do you explain then the lack of massive increase in revenues after the upper rate is cut rather substantially in the 60's and then in the 80's?

Are you deaf? I have maintained that revenues maintain an average of 18.3% of GDP. It is the unusual events that cause them to go higher or lower.

If your theory were to hold true, both things should be impossible, but there they are, right in the graph you yourself posted.

Believe that if you want.

You did read the rest of the graph to see if it fit your theory right?

What do you mean by read it? You would have to do extensive research of several types of key events to properly surmise anything. Recent history is more fresh on our minds.

My point anyway is to show that taxing the rich more does not increase government revenue. That the revenue the government gets is seldom outside a narrow margin. Actual tax rates do not interfere with the revenue as much as uncertainty does. When a business/corporation know how to plan, they can.

Where am I wrong about that? What basis does this historical fact have to tell us taxing the rich more is good?

[George Gervin's Afro]

Very possible the end of WWII, with the return of soldiers working again and spending money here. Could be several other things too.

Are you deaf? I have maintained that revenues maintain an average of 18.3% of GDP. It is the unusual events that cause them to go higher or lower.

Believe that if you want.

What do you mean by read it? You would have to do extensive research of several types of key events to properly surmise anything. Recent history is more fresh on our minds.

My point anyway is to show that taxing the rich more does not increase government revenue. That the revenue the government gets is seldom outside a narrow margin. Actual tax rates do not interfere with the revenue as much as uncertainty does. When a business/corporation know how to plan, they can.

Where am I wrong about that? What basis does this historical fact have to tell us taxing the rich more is good?

Ben Stein

....but the data is very clear that we had higher rates of economic growth in the 40s, 50s, 60s and 70s when we had higher taxes. The era of very low Bush 43 taxes has correlated with a low period in productivity growth and a low period of economic growth. You cannot correlate low taxes with high productivity. It just can't be done.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/oreill...#ixzz1RM0K17Kk

Do I believe a partisan hack on this board... or a repsected right wing economist...

[TeyshaBlue]

Predictable.

You know I'm right, so you sidetrack the issue.

No, you're so unbelivably mypoic that you fail to see the irony in RG's post. Sidetrack?

He pointed out a correlation between washing his car and rain. You pointed out a correlation between the economy tanking and some perceived Democratic "control" of Congress.

You have not established one iota of causation.

[fyatuk]

I said years back that washing my car would make it rain. I washed my car, then it rained.

No no no. It rains when I plan to mow my yard. Hasn't failed in 5 years. Everytime I try and mow my yard, it rains. It's why I've usually ended up paying someone to do it on the spur of the moment. Although I did manage to sneak it in earlier this year (it rained that night).

Which reminds me, people in San Antonio should expect rain on Saturday