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

[keee keee]

It is now time for hope and change. That is We as a country are hopoing for a change and Obama Is not the change we need

 

[boedicca]

There are 2.5M less people working now than when the Stimulus was passed. The White House can spin as much nonsense as they want about jobs SAVED or created, but employment overall is down.

And there is a reason why: Obamanomics is an Epic Fail which has Made Things Worse.

Then tell us how many more or less people would be working had there been no stimulus.

And be specific.

5.1M more people would have jobs if the Stimulus had not been passed.

According to the Romer report on the stimulus, by the end of Q2-2011, if the stimulus were not passed, unemployment would be at 7.5%.

Based upon stats from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, I did a simple analysis which assumes:

Labor force participation rates remain the same as February 2009 (the month the stimulus was passed). I applied this rate to the eligible population base, calculated unemployment, and then netted the total employed. Note, as the June 2011 figures have not been released, I'm using May as a proxy. The net changes in column (d) are (c) minus (a).

Voila. 5.1M more jobs.

http://www.economics21.org/blog/revisiting-unemployment-predictions

http://www.politico.com/static/PPM116_obamadoc.html

http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost?ce

 

[boedicca]

There are 2.5M less people working now than when the Stimulus was passed. The White House can spin as much nonsense as they want about jobs SAVED or created, but employment overall is down.

And there is a reason why: Obamanomics is an Epic Fail which has Made Things Worse.

Link?

Here you go. Look it up yourself.

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

 

[NYcarbineer]

I think it is hilarious that anyone even argues that it worked... it hasn't. We're worse off for sure.. and getting worserer and worserer.

The Republican House and the Bush tax cut extensions own the economy now.

 

[NYcarbineer]

There are 2.5M less people working now than when the Stimulus was passed. The White House can spin as much nonsense as they want about jobs SAVED or created, but employment overall is down.

And there is a reason why: Obamanomics is an Epic Fail which has Made Things Worse.

Link?

Here you go. Look it up yourself.

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

I already did.

139 million working in 2009, 139 million working in 2011.

 

[NYcarbineer]

There are 2.5M less people working now than when the Stimulus was passed. The White House can spin as much nonsense as they want about jobs SAVED or created, but employment overall is down.

And there is a reason why: Obamanomics is an Epic Fail which has Made Things Worse.

Then tell us how many more or less people would be working had there been no stimulus.

And be specific.

5.1M more people would have jobs if the Stimulus had not been passed.

According to the Romer report on the stimulus, by the end of Q2-2011, if the stimulus were not passed, unemployment would be at 7.5%.

Based upon stats from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, I did a simple analysis which assumes:

Labor force participation rates remain the same as February 2009 (the month the stimulus was passed). I applied this rate to the eligible population base, calculated unemployment, and then netted the total employed. Note, as the June 2011 figures have not been released, I'm using May as a proxy. The net changes in column (d) are (c) minus (a).

Voila. 5.1M more jobs.

Revisiting Unemployment Predictions | e21 - Economic Policies for the 21st Century

http://www.politico.com/static/PPM116_obamadoc.html

Top Picks (Most Requested Statistics) : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

 

[boedicca]

Link?

Here you go. Look it up yourself.

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

I already did.

139 million working in 2009, 139 million working in 2011.

You need to look at the monthly totals. When Obama took office, the level was 142.2M. I will correct my figure to 2.3M jobs lost as I had been using the February figures.

 

[boedicca]

Then tell us how many more or less people would be working had there been no stimulus.

And be specific.

5.1M more people would have jobs if the Stimulus had not been passed.

According to the Romer report on the stimulus, by the end of Q2-2011, if the stimulus were not passed, unemployment would be at 7.5%.

Based upon stats from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, I did a simple analysis which assumes:

Labor force participation rates remain the same as February 2009 (the month the stimulus was passed). I applied this rate to the eligible population base, calculated unemployment, and then netted the total employed. Note, as the June 2011 figures have not been released, I'm using May as a proxy. The net changes in column (d) are (c) minus (a).

Voila. 5.1M more jobs.

Revisiting Unemployment Predictions | e21 - Economic Policies for the 21st Century

http://www.politico.com/static/PPM116_obamadoc.html

Top Picks (Most Requested Statistics) : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

How sad that you think it's funny that 5.1M people are needlessly unemployed.

That's True Liberal Compassion.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Here you go. Look it up yourself.

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

I already did.

139 million working in 2009, 139 million working in 2011.

You need to look at the monthly totals. When Obama took office, the level was 142.2M. I will correct my figure to 2.3M jobs lost as I had been using the February figures.

And the stimulus took effect on January 20th, 2009?

You are cracking me up. Please!!! Stop!!!

 

[NYcarbineer]

5.1M more people would have jobs if the Stimulus had not been passed.

According to the Romer report on the stimulus, by the end of Q2-2011, if the stimulus were not passed, unemployment would be at 7.5%.

Based upon stats from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, I did a simple analysis which assumes:

Labor force participation rates remain the same as February 2009 (the month the stimulus was passed). I applied this rate to the eligible population base, calculated unemployment, and then netted the total employed. Note, as the June 2011 figures have not been released, I'm using May as a proxy. The net changes in column (d) are (c) minus (a).

Voila. 5.1M more jobs.

Revisiting Unemployment Predictions | e21 - Economic Policies for the 21st Century

http://www.politico.com/static/PPM116_obamadoc.html

Top Picks (Most Requested Statistics) : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

How sad that you think it's funny that 5.1M people are needlessly unemployed.

That's True Liberal Compassion.

I'm laughing because your numbers are voodoo.

 

[DontBeStupid]

There are 2.5M less people working now than when the Stimulus was passed. The White House can spin as much nonsense as they want about jobs SAVED or created, but employment overall is down.

And there is a reason why: Obamanomics is an Epic Fail which has Made Things Worse.

Then tell us how many more or less people would be working had there been no stimulus.

And be specific.

5.1M more people would have jobs if the Stimulus had not been passed.

According to the Romer report on the stimulus, by the end of Q2-2011, if the stimulus were not passed, unemployment would be at 7.5%.

Based upon stats from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, I did a simple analysis which assumes:

Labor force participation rates remain the same as February 2009 (the month the stimulus was passed). I applied this rate to the eligible population base, calculated unemployment, and then netted the total employed. Note, as the June 2011 figures have not been released, I'm using May as a proxy. The net changes in column (d) are (c) minus (a).

Voila. 5.1M more jobs.

Revisiting Unemployment Predictions | e21 - Economic Policies for the 21st Century

http://www.politico.com/static/PPM116_obamadoc.html

Top Picks (Most Requested Statistics) : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

heh heh that's cute. Problem is you are using outdated estimates. 2009 estimates? Really?

Got anything more recent?

 

[boedicca]

I already did.

139 million working in 2009, 139 million working in 2011.

You need to look at the monthly totals. When Obama took office, the level was 142.2M. I will correct my figure to 2.3M jobs lost as I had been using the February figures.

And the stimulus took effect on January 20th, 2009?

You are cracking me up. Please!!! Stop!!!

I said when Obama took office. The stimulus was passed the next month.

And I did my analysis to get to the 5.1M based on end of February data, after the stimulus was passed.

The 7.5% unemployment prediction was the Obama Economic Advisors' estimate of what unemployment would be without the stimulus. You can read it for yourself.

http://www.politico.com/static/PPM116_obamadoc.html

 

[NYcarbineer]

5.1M more people would have jobs if the Stimulus had not been passed.

According to the Romer report on the stimulus, by the end of Q2-2011, if the stimulus were not passed, unemployment would be at 7.5%.

Based upon stats from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, I did a simple analysis which assumes:

Labor force participation rates remain the same as February 2009 (the month the stimulus was passed). I applied this rate to the eligible population base, calculated unemployment, and then netted the total employed. Note, as the June 2011 figures have not been released, I'm using May as a proxy. The net changes in column (d) are (c) minus (a).

Voila. 5.1M more jobs.

Revisiting Unemployment Predictions | e21 - Economic Policies for the 21st Century

http://www.politico.com/static/PPM116_obamadoc.html

Top Picks (Most Requested Statistics) : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

How sad that you think it's funny that 5.1M people are needlessly unemployed.

That's True Liberal Compassion.

The stimulus was all tax cuts and borrowed money. There is no way the stimulus was a drag on the economy. The stimulus created or saved 3 million jobs.

You're making the argument that a do-nothing strategy would have first of all created or saved THOSE 3 million jobs,

and then created 2 million more on top of that? That's mental.

How? Where? Why?

Where would they have been working? In what industries, sectors? Where would all the state employees that would have been laid off without state/local governments getting stimulus been working?

Where would the construction workers who worked on road jobs etc., paid for by the stimulus been working had there been no stimulus? Who would have hired them and why?

Use your head for once.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You need to look at the monthly totals. When Obama took office, the level was 142.2M. I will correct my figure to 2.3M jobs lost as I had been using the February figures.

And the stimulus took effect on January 20th, 2009?

You are cracking me up. Please!!! Stop!!!

I said when Obama took office. The stimulus was passed the next month.

And I did my analysis to get to the 5.1M based on end of February data, after the stimulus was passed.

The 7.5% unemployment prediction was the Obama Economic Advisors' estimate of what unemployment would be without the stimulus. You can read it for yourself.

http://www.politico.com/static/PPM116_obamadoc.html

Their prediction is useless. Where did they predict it would be with the stimulus.

 

[DontBeStupid]

Here you go. Look it up yourself.

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

As long as we're looking things up (I love that by the way) care to address the fact that the Romer Report estimated 137.55M payroll employment and you have it at 139.78M.

I mean, that almost seems like you are proving the Recovery Act beat its own estimates by 2 million jobs! Certainly you're not trying to say that, are you?

 

[rdean]

Nearly half was "tax cuts". Get it? "Tax cuts". Republicans say "Tax cuts make jobs". What? Unless they are Obama's "Tax Cuts"? Is that it?

 

[boedicca]

How sad that you think it's funny that 5.1M people are needlessly unemployed.

That's True Liberal Compassion.

The stimulus was all tax cuts and borrowed money. There is no way the stimulus was a drag on the economy. The stimulus created or saved 3 million jobs.

You're making the argument that a do-nothing strategy would have first of all created or saved THOSE 3 million jobs,

and then created 2 million more on top of that? That's mental.

How? Where? Why?

Where would they have been working? In what industries, sectors? Where would all the state employees that would have been laid off without state/local governments getting stimulus been working?

Where would the construction workers who worked on road jobs etc., paid for by the stimulus been working had there been no stimulus? Who would have hired them and why?

Use your head for once.

I'd rather not use my head the way you do. Shoving it up the ass is not very comfortable.

The stimulus is a drag on the economy just the same way an individual have 25 credit cards charged to the max experiences a drag on lifestyle as all of his income goes to debt service.

We've already borrowed so much from the future that we can't avoid the economic hangover we are enduring. All Obama did was Make It Worse.

 

[NYcarbineer]

How sad that you think it's funny that 5.1M people are needlessly unemployed.

That's True Liberal Compassion.

The stimulus was all tax cuts and borrowed money. There is no way the stimulus was a drag on the economy. The stimulus created or saved 3 million jobs.

You're making the argument that a do-nothing strategy would have first of all created or saved THOSE 3 million jobs,

and then created 2 million more on top of that? That's mental.

How? Where? Why?

Where would they have been working? In what industries, sectors? Where would all the state employees that would have been laid off without state/local governments getting stimulus been working?

Where would the construction workers who worked on road jobs etc., paid for by the stimulus been working had there been no stimulus? Who would have hired them and why?

Use your head for once.

I'd rather not use my head the way you do. Shoving it up the ass is not very comfortable.

The stimulus is a drag on the economy just the same way an individual have 25 credit cards charged to the max experiences a drag on lifestyle as all of his income goes to debt service.

We've already borrowed so much from the future that we can't avoid the economic hangover we are enduring. All Obama did was Make It Worse.

Address my points specifically if you think you know it all.

btw, NOBODY's taxes went up to service the debt created by the stimulus, so your attempted point is worthless.

 

[DontBeStupid]

The stimulus is a drag on the economy just the same way an individual have 25 credit cards charged to the max experiences a drag on lifestyle as all of his income goes to debt service.

We've already borrowed so much from the future that we can't avoid the economic hangover we are enduring. All Obama did was Make It Worse.

But, we're not spending all our income on debt service. No where near it. Not on the Federal level any way, so, where is this drag you're talking about?

 

[boedicca]

The stimulus is a drag on the economy just the same way an individual have 25 credit cards charged to the max experiences a drag on lifestyle as all of his income goes to debt service.

We've already borrowed so much from the future that we can't avoid the economic hangover we are enduring. All Obama did was Make It Worse.

But, we're not spending all our income on debt service. No where near it. Not on the Federal level any way, so, where is this drag you're talking about?

You don't understand much about economics do you?

The size of the Federal Government relative to GDP has increased by 25% in three short years, to nearly 25% of GDP. Official federal debt is now 70% of GDP, rising from 40% three years earlier.

When the government spends that much money on the "business of government", economic growth slows down for a variety of reasons: poor allocation of capital, uncertainty regarding fiscal and tax policies, the growth of the regulatory burden used to justify the increase in the size of government (to name a few).

The Stimulus was an Epic Fail by it's own standards. The Romer-Bernstein report is evidence of that. You and your little Obamaphiles can't change that fact.