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

[DontBeStupid]

DontBeStupid, what is it? Did the Stimulus that was huge "tax credits" save the country from a Depression or not... You can't claim it worked and argue that it was mostly "tax credits" that did it while also claiming "tax credits" are evil and don't create jobs... Pick a side and stick to it, you catch yourself in so much partisan bullshit it seems pointless to "debate" you

It's because many of you refuse to think in shades of grey. I have never said "tax credits" are evil and don't create jobs. I have never said it because tax cuts (credits, blah, blah) can be very effective at stimulating the economy and growing jobs. But, it depends on the economy. Tax cuts are not a cure all, despite what many "conservatives" want everyone to believe.

In our current economy, consumers are not spending money, they are paying down debts. Because they aren't spending money, companies aren't hiring and growing their business, they are sitting on cash. Our economy can't be fixed by supply-side rhetoric and dis-proven theories. SOMEONE needs to start buying stuff again to get this country growing again, and if it's not consumers and not companies, who is left? Yup. The Government. This is why I am not in favour of spending cuts at this time.

But back to taxes, if you cut taxes right now for companies, they will keep more of their profits and just sit on it. If you cut taxes for consumers, they will pay down debt instead of buying new products. Cutting taxes now will NOT be the most effective form of economic stimulus. This is why I was pissed at Obama for kowtowing to the GOP and adding this weak form of stimulus to the Recover Act, and it is that same weak stimulus that many of you now are crying about, even though the GOP leadership is calling for MORE of it.

Well which is it? Is it a fantastic cure all that we need more of? Just like the GOP leadership is demanding. Or, is it a terrible idea doomed for failure? Just like you think was proven with Obama.

Which is it?

 

[DontBeStupid]

Still waiting for you to prove that Obama created 2.5 million jobs... Wonder if the UE rate will go up this month or sit around 9%.

Oh for fuck sake. Now you're claiming that the whole premise of this thread, which is being used by "conservatives" to attack Obama, may be false and that *I* need to prove it.

Unreal.

 

[Trajan]

Still waiting for you to prove that Obama created 2.5 million jobs... Wonder if the UE rate will go up this month or sit around 9%.

Oh for fuck sake. Now you're claiming that the whole premise of this thread, which is being used by "conservatives" to attack Obama, may be false and that *I* need to prove it.

Unreal.

and what is the 'premise' in your mind?

 

[boedicca]

Interesting choice of links, since they were wrong.

he and harry are attempting to craft a Romulan cloak for stimulus called- Investments...krugmans calcs ante- stimulus said 630 billion or so would do, the Admins plan ala Romer? do we need to post that again? 8% unemployment...etc.

they cannot even QUANTIFY the jobs they say they created, the cbo has been saying anywhere between 1.4 and 3.3 million- so now they have settle don 2.4 , how friggin convenient, right smack dab in the middle of their 250% error estimate window....

I do love how they just get to pick a random (huge) number of all jobs created during a set time and claim it was their doing.

Anything good = Because of Obama and the Dems

Anything bad = Republicans minority in somehow fucked the Dems because they hate America.

LOL, awesome logic these days.

This "random" number thing reminds me of the movie "The Manchurian Candidate".

Senator Iselin keeps changing the number of "confirmed Communists" in the government - and why? Because it is a tactic to get people to discuss how many Communists are in the government, not whether or not there are any.

The Obama Administration is doing the same thing with Jobs Saved Or Created, and the Definition Of Rich Millionaire & Billionaire Private Jet Owners (who make either $250K, $200K, $150K, or $125K depending upon which Obamanoid is speaking).

 

[DontBeStupid]

How can you claim that he created “2.5 million jobs” when unemployment has RISEN since his 3 economic stimulus packages???

Unemployment never went above 8% under Bush. It has never gone below 9% under Obama.

Factually incorrect. Or in other words, you're wrong.

The Obama Administration broke the record for the longest period of unemployment over 9% (sans the Great Depression).

Yup. Beat Reagan by a month. Are you pissed cause Reagan doesn't have the record any more? If it makes you feel better, unemployment was higher under Reagan.

The Obama Administration added over $5 trillion in debt in just 2.5 years

Factually incorrect.

The Obama Administration signed the Financial “Reform” bill which has created unnecessary regulations and costs on businesses.

Name some.

And the Obama Administration gave us the nightmare which is Obamacare – another bill creating unnecessary costs on businesses.

Name some.

 

[DontBeStupid]

it’s a deficit building program that usually is aimed at poor people who don’t create jobs anyways.

Your lack of understanding of macroeconomics is staggering.

 

[Avorysuds]

DontBeStupid, what is it? Did the Stimulus that was huge "tax credits" save the country from a Depression or not... You can't claim it worked and argue that it was mostly "tax credits" that did it while also claiming "tax credits" are evil and don't create jobs... Pick a side and stick to it, you catch yourself in so much partisan bullshit it seems pointless to "debate" you

It's because many of you refuse to think in shades of grey. I have never said "tax credits" are evil and don't create jobs. I have never said it because tax cuts (credits, blah, blah) can be very effective at stimulating the economy and growing jobs. But, it depends on the economy. Tax cuts are not a cure all, despite what many "conservatives" want everyone to believe.

In our current economy, consumers are not spending money, they are paying down debts. Because they aren't spending money, companies aren't hiring and growing their business, they are sitting on cash. Our economy can't be fixed by supply-side rhetoric and dis-proven theories. SOMEONE needs to start buying stuff again to get this country growing again, and if it's not consumers and not companies, who is left? Yup. The Government. This is why I am not in favour of spending cuts at this time.

But back to taxes, if you cut taxes right now for companies, they will keep more of their profits and just sit on it. If you cut taxes for consumers, they will pay down debt instead of buying new products. Cutting taxes now will NOT be the most effective form of economic stimulus. This is why I was pissed at Obama for kowtowing to the GOP and adding this weak form of stimulus to the Recover Act, and it is that same weak stimulus that many of you now are crying about, even though the GOP leadership is calling for MORE of it.

Well which is it? Is it a fantastic cure all that we need more of? Just like the GOP leadership is demanding. Or, is it a terrible idea doomed for failure? Just like you think was proven with Obama.

Which is it?

AGAIN with the partisan bullshit. The GOP leadership is not people on these boards or “conservatives” out in the real world. What you do, because you lack any real argument is gleefully hop from one group to another picking quotes you don’t agree with and apply them to everyone.

Again, I have not seen a single person on these boards nor anyone I have talked to in real life say “tax cuts” is an end all be all cure to the economy. You put that line in people’s mouths because it makes them an easy target.

Tax cuts, real tax cuts, not (blah blah blah) tax credits HELP, create jobs and HELP stability in the economy. You claim companies would sit on that capital, WHAT IS SO BAD ABOUT THAT? Tell us, run over us with this crazy “made up on the spot” logic you seem to believe in so badly. How is taking future capital from companies going to help create jobs in the…… FUTURE!?!?! How does keeping big or small companies (remember we’re not just talking about Obama loving big oil or car companies here) capital lower help them create jobs now or later?

Obama, Dems, Bush or Republicans spending like crazy children creates uncertainty… Companies know they must plan on tax hikes to pay for these programs, and when these programs produce nothing but higher (massive) debit it’s expected that companies tighten their belts and hold up on hiring and expanding even more. How is this most BASIC and INTELLIGENT logic beyond your understanding?

We need spending cuts with a tax code that is simplified and stable to see REAL growth. We need wars ending and social programs that are bankrupting scaled back and possibly ended. These are just DUH logical things to do but they don’t win votes. Like you, you love Obama and the Dems, the biggest war and social spending party in the history of the country… Fuck it, in the history of the world.

 

[Avorysuds]

it’s a deficit building program that usually is aimed at poor people who don’t create jobs anyways.

Your lack of understanding of macroeconomics is staggering.

LOL! Tax credits have been proven to produce near nothing while costing a lot... Prove me worng if you like.

 

[EriktheRed]

Here we go again. Fun with numbers again. You guys seem to think the entire Recovery Act was money sent directly to people in the form of salaries. It wasn't, so dividing the jobs number by the total just gets you some generic jobs/$ spent number, which means pretty much nothing. Not to mention, this is over 2 years, and no one here is even talking about the annual amounts, which would at least be more useful.

Plus, as has already been stated, and was stated in the report, $292B of the Recover Act stimulus was in the form of tax cuts. As has been talked about for years now, tax cuts are a terrible way to stimulate the economy. This is just more proof of that. Had the entire Recovery Act been a jobs programs, the job numbers would have been much better.

All that being said, anyone who claims the Recovery Act was a waste or was a failure is just lying. Two and a half million jobs is not a failure. Getting the economy growing again is not a failure. The only problems with the Recovery Act was the tax cuts and its size. Too many tax cuts and not enough spending.

They have to go with this horseshit because they don't have much else. They need the public to buy that the Prez's policies actually made things worse...it's not enough that no miracles were performed.

...the Standard story doesn’t take into account the fact that jobs aren’t the only thing that has been created by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. It also has funded infrastructure improvements and factory construction, as well as investments in education...

Right's latest talking point: Stimulus cost $278,000 per job - The Plum Line - The Washington Post

 

[hellofromwarsaw]

It's amazing the BS dittoheads will swallow and repeat ad nauseum...

 

[hellofromwarsaw]

"you love Obama and the Dems, the biggest war and social spending party in the history of the country… Fuck it, in the history of the world."

Except that's a myth, and Raygun and Bush were the champs at spending and huge deficits. This, on the other hand is an emergency- Dems actually are always better for the non rich, Pubs good for corrupt booms- and resultant busts and scandals. You are sorely misled. It's amazing the BS dittoheads will swallow and repeat ad nauseum...
__________________

 

[Avorysuds]

"you love Obama and the Dems, the biggest war and social spending party in the history of the country… Fuck it, in the history of the world."

Except that's a myth, and Raygun and Bush were the champs at spending and huge deficits. This, on the other hand is an emergency- Dems actually are always better for the non rich, Pubs good for corrupt booms- and resultant busts and scandals. You are sorely misled. It's amazing the BS dittoheads will swallow and repeat ad nauseum...
__________________

I will not feed the Troll.

 

[DontBeStupid]

it’s a deficit building program that usually is aimed at poor people who don’t create jobs anyways.

Your lack of understanding of macroeconomics is staggering.

LOL! Tax credits have been proven to produce near nothing while costing a lot... Prove me worng if you like.

I added emphasis to help you out.

 

[hellofromwarsaw]

"I will not feed the Troll."

I'm a history teacher, and you're a dittohead moron. TYVM, troll.

 

[DontBeStupid]

AGAIN with the partisan bullshit. The GOP leadership is not people on these boards or “conservatives” out in the real world.

But you agree with me that that is the party line from the GOP leadership? Good. We agree.

Again, I have not seen a single person on these boards nor anyone I have talked to in real life say “tax cuts” is an end all be all cure to the economy. You put that line in people’s mouths because it makes them an easy target.

And yet ...

Tax cuts, real tax cuts, not (blah blah blah) tax credits HELP, create jobs and HELP stability in the economy.

heh heh

You claim companies would sit on that capital, WHAT IS SO BAD ABOUT THAT?

It's great for the company and shareholders and terrible for the workers who do not get raises. It's also terrible for the economy because it means the company is choosing not to hire, and right now, we need jobs.

How is taking future capital from companies going to help create jobs in the…… FUTURE!?!?! How does keeping big or small companies (remember we’re not just talking about Obama loving big oil or car companies here) capital lower help them create jobs now or later?

How much capital do you think companies need before they will expand and start hiring? They have $2T in cash right and that, apparently, is not enough. So tell us, what is the magic number? Tell us, and we can give the companies that amount and fix the economy tomorrow.

Obama, Dems, Bush or Republicans spending like crazy children creates uncertainty

And yet, spending went down last year. Hmm

Companies know they must plan on tax hikes to pay for these programs

If that's the case, why did a survey earlier this year of small businesses say that the #1 reason for not hiring more was due to concerns regarding payroll?

Many Small Businesses Hiring Fewer Workers Than Needed

Also, why did taxes not even make the list?

We need spending cuts with a tax code that is simplified and stable to see REAL growth.

And yet, we had real growth throughout the 1990s, with no spending cuts. Government spending went up every single year and still we saw economic growth. Why?

Is it possible that it's due to you lack of understanding? And lack of research?

 

[boedicca]

What an idiot. The #1 concern was about GROWTH.

 

[skookerasbil]

Another prime example of government not knowing how the hell to do anything...............except of course, collect other peoples money. THAT they do with a great deal of proficiency.

The government is the most corrupt institution on the face of the earth.......and interestingly, the lefty k00ks on this board put a blind trust into everything the government does. Its fcukking fascinating. To them, whatever the government does is golden.

The founders of our great nation, in their infinite wisdom, saw this, as is clearly documented in their writings. All had a profound distrust of government and warned of its potential abuses, which we've all seen with staggering clarity over the past 100 years, but most notably the past 2 years. They forsaw the soft tyranny we are seeing in this country since 2008.

Thankfully.........the governed have stood up to take notice. We wont be seeing "government stimulus" any time soon......and likely, not again in my lifetime!! 100% certainty not in the next 10 years.

 

[skookerasbil]

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

oh, so NOW you're down with "tax cuts" ( I only use the term because you did and you are incapable of simple addition and subtraction)

I'm just pointing out that the numbers being used as a per job cost are counting the lost revenue from the tax cuts as a cost.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I'd say offhand that the number is B.S. because it appears it does not take into account whatever revenue each job might generate back to the government.