Just in time for the 4th of July... and unLimited Government.Subheading: The stimulus is now causing the economy to shed jobs.
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.
Obama
The Weekly Standard? I can't think of a reaosn why I would question anything there. :lamo :lamo :lamo
And yes, if the government controlled the economy, they would be doing the hiring. They don't.
So, they spent money to keep people working, for a short time, hoping that the forces that do control the economy would kick in.
For those who kept their jobs, I suspect they are grateful. For Walstreet? Banks? The auto industry? Which party wouldn't have helped them? Let me know.
Assuming that figure is correct, it's a great argument for public work programs. If they paid 50k a year, you could create more than 5 public sector jobs for each one created by the stimulus.
Assuming that figure is correct, it's a great argument for public work programs. If they paid 50k a year, you could create more than 5 public sector jobs for each one created by the stimulus.
I normally seek sources that appease the Socialist Peanut Gallery (CBS, NBC, NYT, MSNBC, CNN, ABC, Slate, HuffPo, etc.) as to eliminate but it seems they haven't been too interested in this story or what it means in horrendous waste. I can understand the man the journ-O-lists propagandized for heavily in 07-08 are doing their best to sweep his endless doo-doo's under the carpet, but it seems they are having a hard time.The Weekly Standard? I can't think of a reaosn why I would question anything there. :lamo :lamo :lamo
I normally seek sources that appease the Socialist Peanut Gallery (CBS, NBC, NYT, MSNBC, CNN, ABC, Slate, HuffPo, etc.) as to eliminate but it seems they haven't been too interested in this story or what it means in horrendous waste. I can understand the man the journ-O-lists propagandized for heavily in 07-08 are doing their best to sweep his endless doo-doo's under the carpet, but it seems they are having a hard time.
.
Start out with attacking the messenger.....nice work.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/cea_7th_arra_report.pdf....will straight from the Kenyan horse's mouth suffice?
.....and at a taxpayer's cost of almost $300,000.00 per job......thank gawd the lsd enduced belief in Keynesian economics is coming to an end.
So Obama's PORKULUS wasnt so much about creating jobs or stimulating the economy, as it was about postponing the unemployment of a bunch of liberal parasites.
The Tea Party........America's last Hope.......
.
.
.
Psst. Operating a particular employee costs more than just their salary.
One could say it costs a $100 million to employ two airline pilots, right? They need a plane. You might pay a construction worker a decent salary but you also need to purchase supplies and equipment for him to do his job. The money going to purchase those supplies and equipment doesn't evaporate, there's a ripple effect. Purchasing the $100 million aircraft creates lots of jobs in our airline pilot scenario.
If you're interested in actually stimulating the economy, cutting checks to people is a far better solution than creating more bureaucracy.
The flow of money will increase faster, when there are more hands spending it.
To some degree I agree with you. However, do you really think conservatives would accept that, especially since they would have be good size checks and not one time checks.
This is typical of the libs to throw money to fix ANY kind of problem.Just in time for the 4th of July... and unLimited Government.
Viva La Revolución! Viva! Viva!
Isn't it embarrassing to have voted for DumBO?
That's OK... I'm sure it was well meant, but you can correct this error by supporting DumBO's opposition... today.
It's the American thing to do.
.
The Weekly Standard? I can't think of a reaosn why I would question anything there. :lamo :lamo :lamo
And yes, if the government controlled the economy, they would be doing the hiring. They don't. So, they spent money to keep people working, for a short time, hoping that the forces that do control the economy would kick in. For those who kept their jobs, I suspect they are grateful. For Walstreet? Banks? The auto industry? Which party wouldn't have helped them? Let me know.
If the tea party is the last hope, God help us all.
Now, answer the question asked, which party would not have bailed out the banks, walstreet, the auto industry?
Oh, and while you're at it, what is a job saved worth?
This is great, we could all use a check for $278,000. :clap:
The Tea Party..........
If you feel the need to ask a third time........The Tea Party.
If its saving a job to postpone unemployment for a few months......its not so much "worth" as it is "cost" isnt it?
.
.
...do you measure this on a happiness curve, or is there an appreciation index that can definitively tell us whether it's a rational policy decision? I'm not finding anything in my economics text.They appreciated that. So, how much is a job worth? Worth is about how much will you pay for it. I suspect the answer depends a lot on who you ask. Those who kept woking who wouldn't have otherwise might answer differently than you will.
...do you measure this on a happiness curve, or is there an appreciation index that can definitively tell us whether it's a rational policy decision? I'm not finding anything in my economics text.
:lamo
Just in time for the 4th of July... and unLimited Government.
Viva La Revolución! Viva! Viva!
Isn't it embarrassing to have voted for DumBO?
That's OK... I'm sure it was well meant, but you can correct this error by supporting DumBO's opposition... today.
It's the American thing to do.
.
Holy cow who made this asinine calculation, some kid from grammar school? Where are supplies and material factored in. Also, the value of the output.
I merely find it funny that those who whine so much about biased media go so much out of their way to seek biased reporting. Which supports what I suspect, that you just want news to affirm what you believe.
LOL... I go out of my way to find reports filed from news sources Leftists can't complain about. I believe what I believe, journ-O-lists sometimes land a nugget, and sometimes other news agencies drag them kicking to a story.
.
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?