- Joined
- Jul 29, 2009
- Messages
- 34,478
- Reaction score
- 17,282
- Location
- Southwestern U.S.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Obama stimulus spending: $246,436 per new job
Andrew Malcolm
December 8, 2009
According to its own shovel-ready recovery numbers, the nearly 11-month-old Democratic administration claims to have created 640,329 good ol' American jobs so far this year by spending $157.8 billion of that stimulus money.
Now, that works out to a cost of $246,436 per job created, according to figures dug up by the eagle-eyed James Pethokoukis over at Reuters.
Total compensation earned by the average American payroll employee during the month of October was $59,867 on an annualized basis, Pethokoukis reports. That's only 24% of the nearly quarter-million dollars it costs the federal government to create that spot.
Had Obama and Biden simply handed out to unemployed individuals $60,000 as a year's salary, they could have paid for 2.6 million jobs -- four times as many jobs that have been created. That's the kind of disastrous return on investment that could cost a banker his bonus.
Link
This colossal waste of taxpayer money is a classic example of the inefficiency of the federal government, and the number 1 reason why we need to keep the government out of the health care industry.
Do you people realize, that if the Obama administration would have taken that $157 billion, split it up, and simply given it to the 3 million people who have lost their jobs since Obama took office, that would have given each of them $52,600 a piece... That's an entire years wages.
.
It's about time you stopped reading that whacky rag. Not all of the money has been received yet.
Let's not forget that the jobs that are being "created" are temporary, like construction jobs. If it was careers, it wouldn't be so bad, but these are jobs that sometimes don't even last 2 years. Also, some of these jobs aren't even producing any wealth, like construction that isn't even necessary.
LOL, why? because they print crap like this. I've been panning the LA Times for a while.So now the LA times is a "whacky rag"? Why, because it took time away from its usual adoration of BHO?
No, because it isn't all out there yet. News flash: billions is a lot.Not all of the money is out there, why not? Waiting for 12% unemployment? or just the truth that was foretold when this joke of a bill was passed which was, it wasn't a stimulus at all, but a giant pork package, meant to get demo's re elected in 2010, and 2012.
No, because it isn't all out there yet. News flash: billions is a lot.
True, it does take a long time to print a trillion dollars. Probably costs a lot, too.
LOL, why? because they print crap like this. I've been panning the LA Times for a while.
No, because it isn't all out there yet. News flash: billions is a lot.
Wow, you libs are thin skinned.
That has to be the most inane answer posted on these boards to date....Congrats!
j-mac
True or false: $1 of infrastructure spending via a federal fiscal stimulus creates more than $1.6 in GDP.
I will also ask you to explain your answer:2wave:
This colossal waste of taxpayer money is a classic example of the inefficiency of the federal government, and the number 1 reason why we need to keep the government out of the health care industry.
Do you people realize, that if the Obama administration would have taken that $157 billion, split it up, and simply given it to the 3 million people who have lost their jobs since Obama took office, that would have given each of them $52,600 a piece... That's an entire years wages.
.
Dividing the stimulus money spent so far by the estimated number of jobs saved or created" is highly misleading because that calculation ignores the value of the work produced, only includes jobs produced to date from funds that will fuel work for months or years, and excludes indirect employment resulting from the stimulus.
Wash. Examiner forwards misleading cost-per-job stimulus math | Media Matters for America
Dividing the stimulus money spent so far by the estimated number of jobs saved or created" is highly misleading because that calculation ignores the value of the work produced, only includes jobs produced to date from funds that will fuel work for months or years, and excludes indirect employment resulting from the stimulus.
Wash. Examiner forwards misleading cost-per-job stimulus math | Media Matters for America
True or false: $1 of infrastructure spending via a federal fiscal stimulus creates more than $1.6 in GDP.
I will also ask you to explain your answer:2wave:
We need to get that Dow below when Reagan took over, so we can relive those pre-Reagan good times.Government healthcare is expected to have a -3% impact on GDP, too.
For reference, the drop we just took this past year was -3%. Oh, goody, maybe we can hit 20% unemployment and 2000 in the Dow.
Let's not forget that the jobs that are being "created" are temporary, like construction jobs. If it was careers, it wouldn't be so bad, but these are jobs that sometimes don't even last 2 years. Also, some of these jobs aren't even producing any wealth, like construction that isn't even necessary.
It's a stimulus. It will help create other jobs, which create other jobs, and so on, until there are permanent ones.
It's a stimulus. It will help create other jobs, which create other jobs, and so on, until there are permanent ones.
Newsflash: the government can't do that...:rofl
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?