Reply With Quote
Considering the relatively small percentage of the stimulus bill that was actually going to go towards procuring goods or services (a.k.a. things that might actually stimulate the economy), these results aren't surprising at all.
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” 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.
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.
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 cons uencies 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). It’s now $14.467 trillion — and counting.
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.”
Considering the relatively small percentage of the stimulus bill that was actually going to go towards procuring goods or services (a.k.a. things that might actually stimulate the economy), these results aren't surprising at all.
If it's from anywhere from with 10 ft of Billy Kristol, we know damn well it's always wrong.
How much of the stimulus was tax cuts? I thought tax cuts didn't cost anything.
not only do all tax cuts cost nothing (esp those for the super rich and corps), they always pay for themselves, and more!, and make everybody richer.
Depends on whether or not you think "refundable tax credit" = "tax cut".How much of the stimulus was tax cuts? I thought tax cuts didn't cost anything.
Someone owes $0 in income taxes and qualifies for a $1,000 tax credit. The government sends that person a check for $1,000. Is that a tax cut, or is it spending?
If you think it's a tax cut, then 40% of the stimulus was tax cuts.
If you think that's spending, then it's 20%.
Kristol is like a weathervane of wrong, but gets to keep sitting where he is on the strength of his pleasantness and imperturbable demeanor. Dude is cu ber cool, sounds totally smart and reasonable even when he isn't.
the other always-wrong conservative fils pourri is Steve Forbes.
It was Kristol who got infatuated with pitbull and got her ass out of Alaska.
He's a Fox analyst now. Nothing to do with WS.
Kristol's emeritus, right?
Does Kristol sit on The White House's Council of Economic Advisors?
Does he then? I'm sure I wouldn't know.
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
"creating millions of jobs per year"
We'll see. If it doesn't create any, the WH can just say that millions were "saved".
I like how media matters bashes the $275k number as "bogus math", yet apparantely the $100k number of what the "true" number "will probably be" requires no do entation of it's mathmatical origins whatsoever.
MM prolly cribbed it from thinkprogress.borg.
As if there were any rock solid accounting of jobs created as a result of said monies...which there aint.
, even the CBO says we can make a guess, but it aint even a good one.
At least I can follow where the $275 number came from. Someone went to the official report on the White House website, and did some simple digging. They took the $666B that has been spent so far (pg 3) and divided that by the 2.4 mil jobs that whatever financial model said would not exist today had there not been a stimulus(pg 7) and just divided.
Since it's using to-date costs and to-date jobs, that certainly doesn't look like someone is trying to artificially inflate the costs by trying to hide multiple years of costs into a single year of benefits as mm suggests with the school lunch example.
That 2.4 mil jobs is the poison pill of any subsequent analysis. It's a very shaky guess, and any analysis predicated upon that figure is fairly suspect.
True.
Who said it was going to be cheap?
Why isn't it called the "Debt Stimulus Program?"
Don't know any stimulus plan, including tax cuts, that didn't increase the debt.
Do you?
No, but this one in hindsight, and even foresight by people like me, knew it would severely increase the debt.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
