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

[NYcarbineer]

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 Problem is you are using outdated estimates. 2009 estimates?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?

The Romer report predicted that total employment would be 133 million by Q4 2010 WITHOUT the stimulus.

So now let boedicca tell us what the actual number was WITH the stimulus.

Ok, I'll help her. December 2010 employment was 139 million.

So, if we operate from boedicca's OWN premise ( as daft as it is) that Romer's predictions can be treated as fact, then:

Total employment with the stimulus, by the end of 2010, was 6 million jobs HIGHER than it would have been without the stimulus.

Again, that's using boedicca's rules of logic.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Use YOUR head for once! Creating $5 TRILLION in DEBT in 2.5 years on pork and waste does NOT create jobs. What happened to all of those "workers who worked on road jobs" as you like to say after the road was completed???? Exactly - they went back to being unemployed. Obama used 2 million temporary census workers to artificially boost the insane unemployment thanks to his Marxist policies. Guess what happened to those people once the census was complete? Exactly - they went back to being unemployed. Here are a few facts from the wonderful stimulus that was soooo useful in putting people to work:

$554,763 to replace Windows in Forest Service Visitor Center which closed in 2007 (Amboy, WA)

$762,372 on Interactive Dance Software Development (Charlotte, NC)

$1.2 million to convert abandoned Train Station into a Museum (Glassboro, NJ)

$1.9 million to send researchers to the Southwest Indian Ocean Islands and east
Africa, to capture, photograph, and analyze thousands of exotic ants

$357,710 on old abandoned iron furnace after money was squandered on the same project years before

$89,298 to replaces new sidewalks with newer sidewalks – which lead to a ditch (Boynton, OK)

You know what’s funny? The Dumbocrats demonize the wealthy and paint them as “evil” for having private jets, yet they applaud when Obama spends $800 BILLION in wasteful pork projects. That’s just amazing. Someone who EARNS their money is “evil” for dropping $20 million on a private jet, but the Marxist Obama is a national hero for pissing away $800 BILLION that was literally stolen (against our will) from the American tax payer.

As entertaining as your outburst was, it has nothing to do with what I was addressing with the other poster.

LMAO! You were addressing the stimulus and what it did for jobs. So what I posted (which was far from an "outburst") had EVERYTHING to do with what you were addressing with the other poster. It's just that liberals hate facts, so they have to dance around them rather than acknowledge them. The stimulus was a complete and total failure. Period.

No.

The other poster made the preposterous claim that there would have been MORE jobs created in the last 2 years had there been NO stimulus. I asked her for a real life plausible specific detailed explanation as to how that would have happened...

...which, of course, was met with stunned silence, which, also of course, is not at all surprising because there is no such plausible explanation.

 

[The Rabbi]

As entertaining as your outburst was, it has nothing to do with what I was addressing with the other poster.

LMAO! You were addressing the stimulus and what it did for jobs. So what I posted (which was far from an "outburst") had EVERYTHING to do with what you were addressing with the other poster. It's just that liberals hate facts, so they have to dance around them rather than acknowledge them. The stimulus was a complete and total failure. Period.

No.

The other poster made the preposterous claim that there would have been MORE jobs created in the last 2 years had there been NO stimulus. I asked her for a real life plausible specific detailed explanation as to how that would have happened...

...which, of course, was met with stunned silence, which, also of course, is not at all surprising because there is no such plausible explanation.

Maybe he had better things to do than debate an idiot.
Actually with no stimulus there would not have been a giant sucking sound of money leaving the economy as the gov't borrowed and taxed its way to prosperity.
Prices would have reached a floor, assets sold, and the base for a new upturn in the business cycle established.
As it is, we are still dealing with an enormous overhang of foreclosed property (40% of listings in my market) that is depressing prices, and thus depressing a major industry in this country.
Every dollar spent in the stimulus had to come at the expense of a dollar in the private sector, one that was being used more efficiently anyway.

 

[boedicca]

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?

So you're saying that the Romer report predicted that employment would DECREASE by nearly 4.4M jobs? 142.2M people were employed when Obama took office.

In hindsight, they're behind their planned job destruction.

The stimulus wasn't passed the day Obama took office and wasn't immediately put into effect the day it was passed.

Obama signed the bill on February 17, 2009. The justification was that something needed to be done right away, and we can all see the forecasts of the impact in the Romer-Bernstein report from January 2009. There was supposed to be a quick impact from Shovel Ready Jobs which, The One himself now admits (to the amusement of his Cronies) were not as Shovel Ready as he thought.

 

[boedicca]

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?

The Romer report predicted that total employment would be 133 million by Q4 2010 WITHOUT the stimulus.

So now let boedicca tell us what the actual number was WITH the stimulus.

Ok, I'll help her. December 2010 employment was 139 million.

So, if we operate from boedicca's OWN premise ( as daft as it is) that Romer's predictions can be treated as fact, then:

Total employment with the stimulus, by the end of 2010, was 6 million jobs HIGHER than it would have been without the stimulus.

Again, that's using boedicca's rules of logic.

You are confusing Non-Farm employment with total employment.

When Obama took office, 142.2M people were employed; 133.6M held non-farm jobs.

And now, far less people are employed in both categories, 139.8 and 131M respectively. 2.4M LESS total people are employed, and 2.5M LESS people are employed in non-farm jobs.

Learn to read the data at the BLS.gov.

 

[edthecynic]

How can it be possible not to understand why we are in such dire straights. So whats the next trick of this administration?

Obama

The right-wing extremist NewsCorp owned Weekly Sub-Standard. You've got to be kidding!

 

[edthecynic]

Read the fine print and you discover there is no empirical evidence the stimulus created even one job.

Bullshit!
If it said that you would have posted the "fine print."

Here's what was actually printed in the report.

IV. CONCLUSION

This report continues the Council of Economic Advisers’ assessment of the economic
impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and the response of the economy as of
the first quarter of 2011.

The analysis indicates that the Recovery Act has played a significant role in the
turnaround of the economy that has occurred over the past two years. Real GDP reached its low
point in the second quarter of 2009 and has been growing solidly since then, in large part because
of the tax cuts and spending increases included in the Act. Employment, after falling
dramatically, began to grow again on a sustained basis through 2010. As of the first quarter of
2011, the report estimates that the Recovery Act raised employment by 2.4 to 3.6 million jobs
relative to what it otherwise would have been.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

Got anything more recent?

The Romer report predicted that total employment would be 133 million by Q4 2010 WITHOUT the stimulus.

So now let boedicca tell us what the actual number was WITH the stimulus.

Ok, I'll help her. December 2010 employment was 139 million.

So, if we operate from boedicca's OWN premise ( as daft as it is) that Romer's predictions can be treated as fact, then:

Total employment with the stimulus, by the end of 2010, was 6 million jobs HIGHER than it would have been without the stimulus.

Again, that's using boedicca's rules of logic.

You are confusing Non-Farm employment with total employment.

When Obama took office, 142.2M people were employed; 133.6M held non-farm jobs.

And now, far less people are employed in both categories, 139.8 and 131M respectively. 2.4M LESS total people are employed, and 2.5M LESS people are employed in non-farm jobs.

Learn to read the data at the BLS.gov.

You're just babbling now. And ignoring the simple fact that there were 6 million more jobs in Dec. 2010 than Romer predicted there would be without the stimulus. That's your argument at work. Your argument proving the success of the stimulus.

 

[Jarhead]

The Romer report predicted that total employment would be 133 million by Q4 2010 WITHOUT the stimulus.

So now let boedicca tell us what the actual number was WITH the stimulus.

Ok, I'll help her. December 2010 employment was 139 million.

So, if we operate from boedicca's OWN premise ( as daft as it is) that Romer's predictions can be treated as fact, then:

Total employment with the stimulus, by the end of 2010, was 6 million jobs HIGHER than it would have been without the stimulus.

Again, that's using boedicca's rules of logic.

You are confusing Non-Farm employment with total employment.

When Obama took office, 142.2M people were employed; 133.6M held non-farm jobs.

And now, far less people are employed in both categories, 139.8 and 131M respectively. 2.4M LESS total people are employed, and 2.5M LESS people are employed in non-farm jobs.

Learn to read the data at the BLS.gov.

You're just babbling now. And ignoring the simple fact that there were 6 million more jobs in Dec. 2010 than Romer predicted there would be without the stimulus. That's your argument at work. Your argument proving the success of the stimulus.

Why did you ignore the err in the writing of your post?

DO you care sop little about the debate at hand that you prefer not knowing the truth?

Are you only into "getting your way" as opposed to trying to see what REALLY needs to be done....as well as what we should NOT do?

Do you truly believe you are never wrong?

 

[Too Tall]

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

Got anything more recent?

The Romer report predicted that total employment would be 133 million by Q4 2010 WITHOUT the stimulus.

So now let boedicca tell us what the actual number was WITH the stimulus.

Ok, I'll help her. December 2010 employment was 139 million.

So, if we operate from boedicca's OWN premise ( as daft as it is) that Romer's predictions can be treated as fact, then:

Total employment with the stimulus, by the end of 2010, was 6 million jobs HIGHER than it would have been without the stimulus.

Again, that's using boedicca's rules of logic.

You are confusing Non-Farm employment with total employment.

When Obama took office, 142.2M people were employed; 133.6M held non-farm jobs.

And now, far less people are employed in both categories, 139.8 and 131M respectively. 2.4M LESS total people are employed, and 2.5M LESS people are employed in non-farm jobs.

Learn to read the data at the BLS.gov.

You are wasting your time explaining the facts to a liberal.

 

[boedicca]

The Romer report predicted that total employment would be 133 million by Q4 2010 WITHOUT the stimulus.

So now let boedicca tell us what the actual number was WITH the stimulus.

Ok, I'll help her. December 2010 employment was 139 million.

So, if we operate from boedicca's OWN premise ( as daft as it is) that Romer's predictions can be treated as fact, then:

Total employment with the stimulus, by the end of 2010, was 6 million jobs HIGHER than it would have been without the stimulus.

Again, that's using boedicca's rules of logic.

You are confusing Non-Farm employment with total employment.

When Obama took office, 142.2M people were employed; 133.6M held non-farm jobs.

And now, far less people are employed in both categories, 139.8 and 131M respectively. 2.4M LESS total people are employed, and 2.5M LESS people are employed in non-farm jobs.

Learn to read the data at the BLS.gov.

You're just babbling now. And ignoring the simple fact that there were 6 million more jobs in Dec. 2010 than Romer predicted there would be without the stimulus. That's your argument at work. Your argument proving the success of the stimulus.

Please provide a direct quote in context which shows this.

You don't know how to read. The Romer report said unemployment WITHOUT the stimulus would be 7.5% by now. Instead, it's over 9%.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So you're saying that the Romer report predicted that employment would DECREASE by nearly 4.4M jobs? 142.2M people were employed when Obama took office.

In hindsight, they're behind their planned job destruction.

The stimulus wasn't passed the day Obama took office and wasn't immediately put into effect the day it was passed.

Obama signed the bill on February 17, 2009. The justification was that something needed to be done right away, and we can all see the forecasts of the impact in the Romer-Bernstein report from January 2009. There was supposed to be a quick impact from Shovel Ready Jobs which, The One himself now admits (to the amusement of his Cronies) were not as Shovel Ready as he thought.

The rate of monthly job losses turned around at the beginning of January 2009, meaning jobs were still being lost but at progressively lower numbers through 2009 until positive job growth began.

 

[P@triot]

The Romer report predicted that total employment would be 133 million by Q4 2010 WITHOUT the stimulus.

So now let boedicca tell us what the actual number was WITH the stimulus.

Ok, I'll help her. December 2010 employment was 139 million.

So, if we operate from boedicca's OWN premise ( as daft as it is) that Romer's predictions can be treated as fact, then:

Total employment with the stimulus, by the end of 2010, was 6 million jobs HIGHER than it would have been without the stimulus.

Again, that's using boedicca's rules of logic.

You are confusing Non-Farm employment with total employment.

When Obama took office, 142.2M people were employed; 133.6M held non-farm jobs.

And now, far less people are employed in both categories, 139.8 and 131M respectively. 2.4M LESS total people are employed, and 2.5M LESS people are employed in non-farm jobs.

Learn to read the data at the BLS.gov.

You're just babbling now. And ignoring the simple fact that there were 6 million more jobs in Dec. 2010 than Romer predicted there would be without the stimulus. That's your argument at work. Your argument proving the success of the stimulus.

The High Price of Obama's Fake Jobs Scheme:

Sometimes magic tricks just aren't that great, and even the most innocent, wide-eyed child can't be fooled by the illusionist's flourish. Such is the case with the rabbit the White House is trying to pull out of its magic hat by claiming that President Barack Obama's stimulus has created or saved 2.4 million jobs at a cost of $666 billion, all while the United States continues to suffer 9.1 percent unemployment. If you do the math, that comes out to around $278,000 per job.

That information comes from a White House Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) report released last Friday that desperately tries to maintain the illusion that Obama's stimulus has saved the day for struggling Americans.

If you take the CEA at its word, you might be a bit confused. Two quarters ago, it claimed that the stimulus added or saved just under 2.7 million jobs. That's 288,000 more jobs than it claims the stimulus has created or saved today. (The Congressional Budget Office has downgraded its claim of the stimulus' "success," too). Compare that to the President's promise to create 3.5 million jobs by 2010—the economy, instead, lost millions of jobs, leaving Obama 7.3 million jobs short of his goal.

The facts are these: Last month, the average length of unemployment stood at 39.7 weeks, the longest since the Department of Labor began tracking it. The unemployment rate increased from 9.0 to 9.1 percent, 13.9 million Americans are unemployed, the economy added only 54,000 jobs, and the labor force participation rate remained flat at 64.2 percent, an all-time low for the fifth straight month.

According to yesterday's Wall Street Journal, "the economy’s improvement since the recession’s end in June 2009 has been the worst, or one of the worst, since the government started tracking these trends after World War II." And things aren't getting better anytime soon. In short, the stimulus did not work. Jobs were lost, not created, and the economy is suffering the effects.

The stark reality of America's unemployment picture aside, there remains the notion that stimulus spending on infrastructure could have "created or saved" jobs in the first place, whether the price tag is $50,000 per job or $700,000. Brian Riedl disputes that theory:
Many lawmakers claim that every $1 billion in highway stimulus can create 47,576 new construction jobs. But Congress must first borrow that $1 billion from the private economy, which will then lose at least as many jobs. Highway spending simply transfers jobs and income from one part of the economy to another.

As economist Ronald Utt has explained, "The only way that $1 billion of new highway spending can create 47,576 new jobs is if the $1 billion appears out of nowhere as if it were manna from heaven."

Manna has not descended from heaven, and a rabbit is not emerging from the White House's hat anytime soon. But like an incompetent fire department trying to save the basement of a building burnt beyond recognition, the White House is trying to salvage the remains of an economic policy gone wrong.

History should be the President's guide (unfortunately though, liberals REFUSE to learn from history). According to Riedl, in the 1930s, New Deal lawmakers doubled federal spending—yet unemployment remained above 20 percent until World War II. Fast-forward to Japan's 1990 recession, in which the country passed 10 stimulus spending bills over eight years, which resulted only in a stagnant economy.

President Obama would do better by the American people if he gave up the fiction he is trying so desperately to maintain and recognize that it's the private sector, not government, that creates jobs and keeps the country running—without costing the taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars.

 

[boedicca]

The stimulus wasn't passed the day Obama took office and wasn't immediately put into effect the day it was passed.

Obama signed the bill on February 17, 2009. The justification was that something needed to be done right away, and we can all see the forecasts of the impact in the Romer-Bernstein report from January 2009. There was supposed to be a quick impact from Shovel Ready Jobs which, The One himself now admits (to the amusement of his Cronies) were not as Shovel Ready as he thought.

The rate of monthly job losses turned around at the beginning of January 2009, meaning jobs were still being lost but at progressively lower numbers through 2009 until positive job growth began.

There are 2.5M less non-farm jobs than when he took office.

Obamanomics = Epic Fail

At this point after prior deep recessions, the economy was growing much more rapidly with millions of jobs added, not lost.

 

[edthecynic]

The payroll tax credit was so bad that 2 GOP senators want it repealed. It simply is a failure. Like the rest of his program.

Absolute proof that the GOP deliberately intend to sabotage the economy to regain power. Cutting payroll taxes gives the most economic growth bang for the buck compared to any other tax cut, and the GOP who worship tax cuts are against it!!!!

November 5, 2008
RUSH: I hope all your Joe the Plumbers are unemployed in six months! There.

October 31, 2008
RUSH: Joe the Plumber. Now, Joe the Plumber is an average citizen

 

[boedicca]

You are confusing Non-Farm employment with total employment.

When Obama took office, 142.2M people were employed; 133.6M held non-farm jobs.

And now, far less people are employed in both categories, 139.8 and 131M respectively. 2.4M LESS total people are employed, and 2.5M LESS people are employed in non-farm jobs.

Learn to read the data at the BLS.gov.

You're just babbling now. And ignoring the simple fact that there were 6 million more jobs in Dec. 2010 than Romer predicted there would be without the stimulus. That's your argument at work. Your argument proving the success of the stimulus.

The High Price of Obama's Fake Jobs Scheme:

Sometimes magic tricks just aren't that great, and even the most innocent, wide-eyed child can't be fooled by the illusionist's flourish. Such is the case with the rabbit the White House is trying to pull out of its magic hat by claiming that President Barack Obama's stimulus has created or saved 2.4 million jobs at a cost of $666 billion, all while the United States continues to suffer 9.1 percent unemployment. If you do the math, that comes out to around $278,000 per job.

That information comes from a White House Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) report released last Friday that desperately tries to maintain the illusion that Obama's stimulus has saved the day for struggling Americans.

If you take the CEA at its word, you might be a bit confused. Two quarters ago, it claimed that the stimulus added or saved just under 2.7 million jobs. That's 288,000 more jobs than it claims the stimulus has created or saved today. (The Congressional Budget Office has downgraded its claim of the stimulus' "success," too). Compare that to the President's promise to create 3.5 million jobs by 2010—the economy, instead, lost millions of jobs, leaving Obama 7.3 million jobs short of his goal.

The facts are these: Last month, the average length of unemployment stood at 39.7 weeks, the longest since the Department of Labor began tracking it. The unemployment rate increased from 9.0 to 9.1 percent, 13.9 million Americans are unemployed, the economy added only 54,000 jobs, and the labor force participation rate remained flat at 64.2 percent, an all-time low for the fifth straight month.

According to yesterday's Wall Street Journal, "the economy’s improvement since the recession’s end in June 2009 has been the worst, or one of the worst, since the government started tracking these trends after World War II." And things aren't getting better anytime soon. In short, the stimulus did not work. Jobs were lost, not created, and the economy is suffering the effects.

The stark reality of America's unemployment picture aside, there remains the notion that stimulus spending on infrastructure could have "created or saved" jobs in the first place, whether the price tag is $50,000 per job or $700,000. Brian Riedl disputes that theory:
Many lawmakers claim that every $1 billion in highway stimulus can create 47,576 new construction jobs. But Congress must first borrow that $1 billion from the private economy, which will then lose at least as many jobs. Highway spending simply transfers jobs and income from one part of the economy to another.

As economist Ronald Utt has explained, "The only way that $1 billion of new highway spending can create 47,576 new jobs is if the $1 billion appears out of nowhere as if it were manna from heaven."

Manna has not descended from heaven, and a rabbit is not emerging from the White House's hat anytime soon. But like an incompetent fire department trying to save the basement of a building burnt beyond recognition, the White House is trying to salvage the remains of an economic policy gone wrong.

History should be the President's guide (unfortunately though, liberals REFUSE to learn from history). According to Riedl, in the 1930s, New Deal lawmakers doubled federal spending—yet unemployment remained above 20 percent until World War II. Fast-forward to Japan's 1990 recession, in which the country passed 10 stimulus spending bills over eight years, which resulted only in a stagnant economy.

President Obama would do better by the American people if he gave up the fiction he is trying so desperately to maintain and recognize that it's the private sector, not government, that creates jobs and keeps the country running—without costing the taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars.

If you are going to quote from a blog, please link to the source.

This is clearly from The Foundry.

http://blog.heritage.org/2011/07/06/morning-bell-the-xfigh-price-of-obamas-fake-jobs-scheme/

 

[NYcarbineer]

You are confusing Non-Farm employment with total employment.

When Obama took office, 142.2M people were employed; 133.6M held non-farm jobs.

And now, far less people are employed in both categories, 139.8 and 131M respectively. 2.4M LESS total people are employed, and 2.5M LESS people are employed in non-farm jobs.

Learn to read the data at the BLS.gov.

You're just babbling now. And ignoring the simple fact that there were 6 million more jobs in Dec. 2010 than Romer predicted there would be without the stimulus. That's your argument at work. Your argument proving the success of the stimulus.

Please provide a direct quote in context which shows this.

You don't know how to read. The Romer report said unemployment WITHOUT the stimulus would be 7.5% by now. Instead, it's over 9%.

So what? The Romer report said without the stimulus that jobs would be at 133 million by the end of 2010. Is that an accurate figure to work with?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Obama signed the bill on February 17, 2009. The justification was that something needed to be done right away, and we can all see the forecasts of the impact in the Romer-Bernstein report from January 2009. There was supposed to be a quick impact from Shovel Ready Jobs which, The One himself now admits (to the amusement of his Cronies) were not as Shovel Ready as he thought.

The rate of monthly job losses turned around at the beginning of January 2009, meaning jobs were still being lost but at progressively lower numbers through 2009 until positive job growth began.

There are 2.5M less non-farm jobs than when he took office.

Obamanomics = Epic Fail

At this point after prior deep recessions, the economy was growing much more rapidly with millions of jobs added, not lost.

You cannot cite a deep recession where the economies are comparable, starting with comparable percentages of American jobs in domestic manufacturing.

 

[boedicca]

Indeed. We never had a recovery the government fucked up so badly.

 

[driveby]

1. Nice to see the wingnuts conceding that the stimulus did in fact create or save almost 3 million jobs.

2. Keep in mind, the stimulus' cost included almost 300 billion in tax cuts.

Only a wingnut would even utter the words "or saved"........