• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Stimulus Boosted Jobs in 2nd Quarter, CBO Says

D

donsutherland1

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2007
Messages
11,862
Reaction score
10,300
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Today, The Wall Street Journal reported:


Stimulus Boosted Jobs in 2nd Quarter, CBO Says - WSJ.com

For those who are interested, the full CBO report can be found at:

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/117xx/doc11706/08-24-ARRA.pdf

Note: One may have to cut and paste the CBO's URL in one's address bar in order to access the report.

CBO's estimates of the stimulus plan's effects in 2010 Q2 were:

- The stimulus raised real GDP by 1.7% to 4.5%
- The stimulus lowered the unemployment rate by 0.7 percentage points to 1.8 percentage points
- The stimulus increased the number of employed persons by 1.4 million to 3.3 million
- The stimulus increased the number of full-time equivalent jobs by 2.0 million to 4.8 million vs. what would otherwise have been the case

In any case, this latest assessment should provide ample ammunition for a continuation of the debate concerning what contribution the economic stimulus made.
 
Last edited:
Likely true, but still too many unemployed for it to help hiim politically yet.
 
While I don't think much of the stimulus should have gone forward and the cost effectiveness may not have been the greatest, I have no doubt it added jobs. How could spending some hundreds of bilions of dollars not create jobs?

Huh. I can't edit out that second "greatest". Weird.
 
Last edited:
Here are some things that should be pointed out from the CBO's report:

First, some of the jobs included in the reports might have existed even without the stimulus package, with employees working on the same activities or other activities.
Click to expand...

This seems like a distinction that should have been made prior to issuing this report. How can the CBO claim the stimulus created a certain number of jobs without determining if it actually did or not?


So what they're saying is, they have no clue if the economy would have been better or worse without the stimulus. WTF?

Since the CBO only issues reports when they are specifically requested, I would say that this report is nothing more than an exercise in political posturing. It's only real purpose is to give the administration some form of justification for spending 800 billion dollars that they didn't have in the first place.

.
 
Last edited:
How many of those were "Census" jobs?
 

Three quick points:

1. CBO used "various mathematical models" to assess revenue/spending-related effects to gain an understanding of the fiscal stimulus program's macroeconomic impact. Additional data related to output and employment was not helpful in assessing the macroeconomic impact for the reasons CBO stated. Moreover, CBO has no doubts that the economy would have been worse without the stimulus, as it concluded that the stimulus provided a minimum of a 1.7% boost to real GDP and 0.7 percentage point reduction to the unemployment rate.

2. CBO's findings are reasonably similar to research that was recently released by economists Alan Blinder and Mark Zandi, who used separate modeling. They found that the fiscal stimulus boosted 2010 real GDP by 3.4% (CBO's estimate: 1.7% to 4.5%), kept the unemployment rate 1.5 percentage points lower (CBO's estimate: 0.7 to 1.8 percentage points lower), and added almost 2.7 million jobs to U.S. payrolls (CBO's estimate: 1.4 million to 3.3 million jobs).

3. CBO is non-partisan. It responds to requests from Democratic and Republican Members of the House and Senate.
 
Interestingly enough--and these numbers will probably ignite partisan passions--CBO also provided estimates as to the provisions that were most stimulative vs. those that were least stimulative. Higher multipliers = greater stimulative impact e.g., a multiplier of 1.5 means that every $1.00 of stimulus spending generated $1.50 of economic output. Hence, a 1.00 multiplier is neutral, as every $1.00 of stimulus spending would lead to a $1.00 increase in output.

Mean Multiplier (average of the low and high estimate):
Purchases of goods/services by the federal government: 1.75
Transfer payments to state/local governments for infrastructure: 1.75
Transfer payments to individuals: 1.45
Transfer payments to state/local governments for other purposes: 1.25
Two-year tax cuts for lower- and middle-income people: 1.05
One-time payments to retirees: 0.65
Extension of first-time homebuyer credit: 0.55
One-year tax cut for higher income people: 0.40
Corporate tax breaks: 0.20

What does this mean?

If the federal government chooses to pursue another stimulus package, something that cannot be ruled out, though I don't believe such a package is needed right now, it should focus on high multiplier items and completely avoid low multiplier ones. That way, each additional dollar of stimulus would have greater bang for the buck and a smaller package would be needed than if the stimulus package diverts funding to low- or even very low-multiplier items.
 
IMHO, any news of upticks or downticks on a per quarter basis are not going to say much for the big picture, as employment is going to be depressed for many years to come.
 
donsutherland1 said:
3. CBO is non-partisan. It responds to requests from Democratic and Republican Members of the House and Senate.
Click to expand...

Correct, but it isn't just told to do a report on something and they do it. They are given parameters by the ones who make the request. They are told what to include in their reports, what to omit, and often told which sources they can use as a basis for them.

The CBO is not allowed to broaden the scope of a report, even if in doing so, it would significantly alter their findings. That's why their reports include so many "what if's" and explanations for their findings.

We saw this with Obamacare. Their reports prior to it's passing that were requested by the administration and democrats on capitol hill, painted a very rosy economic picture for America if the legislation were enacted. After the bill was passed, they were requested to do several other, more broad studies on the Obamacare bill, and every one that has been released so far, has contradicted or greatly reduced the positive benefits they reported initially. That's because their scope was severely limited before by the administration.
 
Last edited:
The report notes, however, that the Recovery Act's effect on output will gradually diminish during the second half of 2010. The law's effect on employment and unemployment will wane gradually in 2011 and beyond.

Funny how that was left out of the OP.

A temporary gain means nothing. Sustained growth is the key.

We also need to remember the unemployment number is well over what Obama and his liberal allies promised it would be if the stimulus was passed.
 
Last edited:
MrVicchio said:
How many of those were "Census" jobs?
Click to expand...

That, and what percentage were public sector and private sector jobs is the reason I read the report in the first place. To my disappointment no such figures were given, because obviously they were not requested to obtain that information.

.
 
Last edited:
Grim17 said:
That, and what percentage were public sector and private sector jobs is the reason I read the report in the first place. To my disappointment no such figures were given, because obviously that was excluded from the request they were issued.

.
Click to expand...

We all know the stimulus was an abysmal failure. It did two things, prop up the economy with temporary jobs that are going away and included some of the biggest liberal pork barrel projects ever seen.
 

oh boy.....seems what dems have been advocating makes sense.
 
texmaster said:
We all know the stimulus was an abysmal failure. It did two things, prop up the economy with temporary jobs that are going away and included some of the biggest liberal pork barrel projects ever seen.
Click to expand...

like what?
 
liblady said:
like what?
Click to expand...

Here's a list from an article on CNN.com:


What GOP Leaders deem wasteful in Senate stimulus bill - CNN.com

Keep in mind that this list was compiled right after the stimulus was passed, and many more pork projects have been discovered since.
 
Last edited:

this is a good thing! finally a substantial change is finally being noticed. although i do agree with some on this thread there are still too many who are unemployed... but this will change as time goes by. i predict that by next year things will be looking a lot better ;]
 

Are we sure it isn't just the spring stimulus that happens every year?

AKA, tax refunds.
 
Grim17 said:
That, and what percentage were public sector and private sector jobs is the reason I read the report in the first place. To my disappointment no such figures were given, because obviously they were not requested to obtain that information.

.
Click to expand...

How is it obvious?
 
As long as the CBO is only allowed to use Keyensian economists to formulate its conclusions it will always be skewed.

I'd like to see a report with a more narrow window of what was supposedly created in jobs, as opposed to the aggregate number of unemployment claims for the same period. I bet it'd be a net loss.


j-mac
 

Let me point out once again, this excerpt from the report:


What this report can not tell you is, how many jobs would have been created in the economy over the last year and a half if the stimulus was never passed. Without that information, those numbers are meaningless.
 
So we are on the path to lollipops and sunshine? Well, not so fast people.....




j-mac
 
okay wow... so didnt see your cnn list there GRIM17 uhhh well some of the things on that list are really essential. the whole going green thing im so for it. it helps out the environment as well as the wildland fire management on forest service lands. gotta keep the forests alive somehow.

$75 million for "smoking cessation activities."
Click to expand...
idk even know what it is nor am i going to google it. it just sounds retarted.

$600 million to buy hybrid vehicles for federal employees.
Click to expand...
wow... really? really? well at least we save more money then the government spending money on gas so theres a lot more money back in the pocket ;]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…