Stimulus creates 2.1 million jobs according to the CBO

[Toro]

how did they arrive at that figure?

Econometric modeling.

right, so they don't actually have hard data, basically guess work, predictions and estimates...

i also take issue with creating, because if the jobs were saved, then it wasn't created. and what type of jobs are these? if i go out and hire some kid to mow my lawn one day this week, can i say i created a job in my community?

They have the hard data.

 

[Toro]

But show me where anybody has evaluated how many of those 14+ million jobs lost would have been saved if all that money had gone to stimulate the private sector rather than keep government employees from being laid off. I don't see any place that anybody has asked the CBO to do an analysis of that.

That is implicit in the modeling. Its a net number. In other words, with the stimulus, ~14 million jobs have been lost net those jobs created. Without the stimulus, job losses would have totaled ~16 billion net those jobs created.

Political people want to find information which confirms their political beliefs. It is called "confirmation bias." I will give something to make all those who think the stimulus is bad feel better.

The stimulus - which BTW tax cuts account for $93 billion of the $262 billion spent thus far - is adding to the debt. The debt needs to be serviced with interest rates. Because the amount of debt is exploding higher, the absolute amount of interest to be paid is growing faster than the potential capacity in the economy. This means that more of our economic production in the future will be used to pay off the debt we are accumulating today. Thus, more of our resources will be dedicated towards the dead-weight loss of interest payments that could have been used for productive uses and create jobs in the future. The increase in debt that is not used to increase the productive capacity of this country but is supporting jobs today will dampen job growth in the future. The stimulus is saving jobs now at the expense of job creation later.

 

[Foxfyre]

But show me where anybody has evaluated how many of those 14+ million jobs lost would have been saved if all that money had gone to stimulate the private sector rather than keep government employees from being laid off. I don't see any place that anybody has asked the CBO to do an analysis of that.

That is implicit in the modeling. Its a net number. In other words, with the stimulus, ~14 million jobs have been lost net those jobs created. Without the stimulus, job losses would have totaled ~16 billion net those jobs created.

Political people want to find information which confirms their political beliefs. It is called "confirmation bias." I will give something to make all those who think the stimulus is bad feel better.

The stimulus - which BTW tax cuts account for $93 billion of the $262 billion spent thus far - is adding to the debt. The debt needs to be serviced with interest rates. Because the amount of debt is exploding higher, the absolute amount of interest to be paid is growing faster than the potential capacity in the economy. This means that more of our economic production in the future will be used to pay off the debt we are accumulating today. Thus, more of our resources will be dedicated towards the dead-weight loss of interest payments that could have been used for productive uses and create jobs in the future. The increase in debt that is not used to increase the productive capacity of this country but is supporting jobs today will dampen job growth in the future. The stimulus is saving jobs now at the expense of job creation later.

There is no doubt that unprecedented deficits as a percentage of the GDP and the unconscionable swelling of the national debt has a damning effect on prosperity and growth. But again, I have nothing more to go on other than my basic understanding in economics and history.

I maintain that had a traditional emphasis been used to grant tax relief and other general incentives in the private sector--to ALL the private sector and not just a favored few--we would have been noticably recovering from this recession by now, there probably would have been much less negative impact on the deficit/debt, and far few workers would have ever been on the unemployment roles.

And if Obama had admitted and targeted for reform the REAL reasons we got in this mess in the first place--that would include irresponsible government policy, an inadequately regulated Fannie and Freddie, union and other special interest favoritism--had extended the Bush tax cuts indefinitely, and had put on the bad burner large, unpopular, too expensive pieces of legislation, he would be a hero now instead of a fading star.

 

[Vast LWC]

There is no doubt that unprecedented deficits as a percentage of the GDP and the unconscionable swelling of the national debt has a damning effect on prosperity and growth. But again, I have nothing more to go on other than my basic understanding in economics and history.

I maintain that had a traditional emphasis been used to grant tax relief and other general incentives in the private sector--to ALL the private sector and not just a favored few--we would have been noticably recovering from this recession by now, there probably would have been much less negative impact on the deficit/debt, and far few workers would have ever been on the unemployment roles.

Which is EXACTLY what Ronald Reagan tried in 1981.

And unemployment continued to rise for another 2 1/2 years, with large amounts of new debt.

What do you think is going to happen differently this time?

And if Obama had admitted and targeted for reform the REAL reasons we got in this mess in the first place--that would include irresponsible government policy, an inadequately regulated Fannie and Freddie, union and other special interest favoritism

It would ALSO include massive deregulation, and massive fraud in the private sector financial industry.

--had extended the Bush tax cuts indefinitely, and had put on the bad burner large, unpopular, too expensive pieces of legislation, he would be a hero now instead of a fading star.

The Bush tax cuts are part of the reason for the mess also, especially the capital gains cuts, which encouraged over-leveraging to make ill-advised investments, creating a massive bubble, just like they did the last time they were this low, in the 1920's.

 

[Vast LWC]

It's akin to you going out and buying your own job, it's not the GOVERNMENT'S money it's YOURS AND your neighbor's money. That growth in GDP is also you buying your own growth. From your link.

The report said the most efficient parts of the stimulus include infrastructure projects such as road- and bridge-building and more generous unemployment benefits. On the other hand, the popular first-time homebuyer tax credit isn't a very efficient use of stimulus dollars, the report said.

Good grief, do you libs ever read your own links- this is pathetic- STILL NO GROWTH IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR.

" A government big enough to give you everything you need is big enough to take everything you have." Thomas Jefferson

So, it's your thought that all the people who have become unemployed due to the Bush Recession should just fuck off and die?

Screw them, right? No unemployment, no welfare, no food, no shelter. Let them and their children die from exposure and starvation.

You are one selfish motherfucker.

 

[Oldandtired]

It's akin to you going out and buying your own job, it's not the GOVERNMENT'S money it's YOURS AND your neighbor's money. That growth in GDP is also you buying your own growth. From your link.

The report said the most efficient parts of the stimulus include infrastructure projects such as road- and bridge-building and more generous unemployment benefits. On the other hand, the popular first-time homebuyer tax credit isn't a very efficient use of stimulus dollars, the report said.

Good grief, do you libs ever read your own links- this is pathetic- STILL NO GROWTH IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR.

" A government big enough to give you everything you need is big enough to take everything you have." Thomas Jefferson

So, it's your thought that all the people who have become unemployed due to the Bush Recession should just fuck off and die?

Screw them, right? No unemployment, no welfare, no food, no shelter. Let them and their children die from exposure and starvation.

You are one selfish motherfucker.

Extension of unemployment benefits would have received a 100 vote aye....and it would have not cost 1 trillion.

The bill was marketed as a job creator...a stimulus bill....not a pain reliever.

Why did you spin what he said? Nowhere did he say anything about unemployment extension should not have been applied.

Why must you discredit his point by spinning what he said?

Is it becuase you do not want to hear what he has to say and you hope your insulting him will make him go away?

 

[Oldandtired]

Econometric modeling.

right, so they don't actually have hard data, basically guess work, predictions and estimates...

i also take issue with creating, because if the jobs were saved, then it wasn't created. and what type of jobs are these? if i go out and hire some kid to mow my lawn one day this week, can i say i created a job in my community?

They have the hard data.

If the CBO had hard data, it would not have a 100% spread...

1 to 2 million jobs seems to be an estimate...and estimates do not come with hard data...they are made by assumption

 

[Oldandtired]

how did they arrive at that figure?

Econometric modeling.

right, so they don't actually have hard data, basically guess work, predictions and estimates...

i also take issue with creating, because if the jobs were saved, then it wasn't created. and what type of jobs are these? if i go out and hire some kid to mow my lawn one day this week, can i say i created a job in my community?

Yurt...let me explain something to you....although you may already know this.

There WERE jobs created...but at the costs of jobs lost.

For example...

Comapny A was offered 1 million per the stimulus to build and install solar panels.

Company B was not offered the 1 million...but they too, install solar panels

Organization C was offered 500K per the stimulus to have solar panels installed and offers companies A and B a chance to bid for the job.

Both put in bids but company A asks for nothing up front as they now have the capital per the stimulus to hire the emplyees required for the new demand. Comapny B asks for money up front so they can hire new employees to meet the contract.

Comapny A gets the bid and needs to hire. Comapny B loses the bid and needs to layoff.

Comapny A hires those laid off from company B.

CBO talks about the 30 jobs created by company A but is not aware of the layoffs of those exact people plus 10 more from company B...who, if the pl;aying field were equal, may have woin the bid and not have to layoff.

And thus why we see unemplyment increase despite 1 million jobs created

 

[Yurt]

Econometric modeling.

right, so they don't actually have hard data, basically guess work, predictions and estimates...

i also take issue with creating, because if the jobs were saved, then it wasn't created. and what type of jobs are these? if i go out and hire some kid to mow my lawn one day this week, can i say i created a job in my community?

They have the hard data.

what specific hard data?

 

[Yurt]

Econometric modeling.

right, so they don't actually have hard data, basically guess work, predictions and estimates...

i also take issue with creating, because if the jobs were saved, then it wasn't created. and what type of jobs are these? if i go out and hire some kid to mow my lawn one day this week, can i say i created a job in my community?

Yurt...let me explain something to you....although you may already know this.

There WERE jobs created...but at the costs of jobs lost.

For example...

Comapny A was offered 1 million per the stimulus to build and install solar panels.

Company B was not offered the 1 million...but they too, install solar panels

Organization C was offered 500K per the stimulus to have solar panels installed and offers companies A and B a chance to bid for the job.

Both put in bids but company A asks for nothing up front as they now have the capital per the stimulus to hire the emplyees required for the new demand. Comapny B asks for money up front so they can hire new employees to meet the contract.

Comapny A gets the bid and needs to hire. Comapny B loses the bid and needs to layoff.

Comapny A hires those laid off from company B.

CBO talks about the 30 jobs created by company A but is not aware of the layoffs of those exact people plus 10 more from company B...who, if the pl;aying field were equal, may have woin the bid and not have to layoff.

And thus why we see unemplyment increase despite 1 million jobs created

ok. what if there was no stimulus, would there have been the money for the solar panels?

 

[Oldandtired]

right, so they don't actually have hard data, basically guess work, predictions and estimates...

i also take issue with creating, because if the jobs were saved, then it wasn't created. and what type of jobs are these? if i go out and hire some kid to mow my lawn one day this week, can i say i created a job in my community?

They have the hard data.

what specific hard data?

the only data the CBO used was data offered by those that received stimulus money. They did not get data from those that compete with those that got stimulus money and thus were forced to layoff.

That is not hard data...that is only half of the data needed to make an accurate evaluation.

 

[Oldandtired]

right, so they don't actually have hard data, basically guess work, predictions and estimates...

i also take issue with creating, because if the jobs were saved, then it wasn't created. and what type of jobs are these? if i go out and hire some kid to mow my lawn one day this week, can i say i created a job in my community?

Yurt...let me explain something to you....although you may already know this.

There WERE jobs created...but at the costs of jobs lost.

For example...

Comapny A was offered 1 million per the stimulus to build and install solar panels.

Company B was not offered the 1 million...but they too, install solar panels

Organization C was offered 500K per the stimulus to have solar panels installed and offers companies A and B a chance to bid for the job.

Both put in bids but company A asks for nothing up front as they now have the capital per the stimulus to hire the emplyees required for the new demand. Comapny B asks for money up front so they can hire new employees to meet the contract.

Comapny A gets the bid and needs to hire. Comapny B loses the bid and needs to layoff.

Comapny A hires those laid off from company B.

CBO talks about the 30 jobs created by company A but is not aware of the layoffs of those exact people plus 10 more from company B...who, if the pl;aying field were equal, may have woin the bid and not have to layoff.

And thus why we see unemplyment increase despite 1 million jobs created

ok. what if there was no stimulus, would there have been the money for the solar panels?

A true stimulus package would have been offering money to thoise that put out FOR bids and to be used strictly for one purpose.

Example....

Stimulus offers organization C 500k to install panels.

Company A and Comapny B put in bids but neither is large enough or have the capital to take on the enitre project...and both need an advance to accommodate.

Comapny A gets the bid for one building and company B for the other. They both get an advance from organization C and both hire to accommodate.

Jobs created, no jobs lost....and less money spent by the taxpayer.

 

[Oldandtired]

truth is, the way the stimulus was designed, it is doing little to employ...but doing much to minimize competition....

Ironically, that will result in higher prices if not monitored properly....and if monitored properly, it will increase government control over buisiness.

I have not been able to find it anywhere in the bill...but I am not patient and I scanned and not read many pages...

But...

after what I saw with tarp, I would not be surprised if somewhere in the bill it states that anyone who got stimulus money, they are beholden to the possibility of the government dictating salaries, profit marhins and such if and when it chooses.

 

[Oldandtired]

And anyone who says my theory is another GOP talking point...that is crap.
This was something my trade organization sat down and evaluated as we are closest to the issues of employment and truly wanted to see what thge stimulus will do for our industry..

And we fdound that it helped our industry dramatically.....we were literally taking those layed off from company A and placing them with company B...doing the exact same job they would have done if company A got the bid...and we were poaid fees to do so.

And we hated the stimulus plan regardless as it was nothing more than making money off of the misery of others...and playing musical chairs.

I presented it to my senators...WITH THE HARD DATA....and never heard back

 

[Meister]

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office study also said the $862 billion stimulus added between 1.5 to 3.5 percentage points to the growth of the economy in 2009.

As reported on FoxNews.com

FOXNews.com - CBO Says Stimulus Bill Created Up to 2.1 Million Jobs

Is this the part where a business with 100 employees accept some stimulus money, and it's counted as 100 jobs saved, or created?

 

[Oldandtired]

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office study also said the $862 billion stimulus added between 1.5 to 3.5 percentage points to the growth of the economy in 2009.

As reported on FoxNews.com

FOXNews.com - CBO Says Stimulus Bill Created Up to 2.1 Million Jobs

Is this the part where a business with 100 employees accept some stimulus money, and it's counted as 100 jobs saved, or created?

Read my scenario below.....POST 68.......it created jobs...but at the cost of more jobs lost.
The CBO gave accurate numbers but did not know how many jobs those "jobs created" actuially cost.

Sadly, it appears it actually cost more jobs than it saved....but lost jobs is not part of the anal;ysis.

 

[Vast LWC]

It's akin to you going out and buying your own job, it's not the GOVERNMENT'S money it's YOURS AND your neighbor's money. That growth in GDP is also you buying your own growth. From your link.

The report said the most efficient parts of the stimulus include infrastructure projects such as road- and bridge-building and more generous unemployment benefits. On the other hand, the popular first-time homebuyer tax credit isn't a very efficient use of stimulus dollars, the report said.

Good grief, do you libs ever read your own links- this is pathetic- STILL NO GROWTH IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR.

" A government big enough to give you everything you need is big enough to take everything you have." Thomas Jefferson

So, it's your thought that all the people who have become unemployed due to the Bush Recession should just fuck off and die?

Screw them, right? No unemployment, no welfare, no food, no shelter. Let them and their children die from exposure and starvation.

You are one selfish motherfucker.

Extension of unemployment benefits would have received a 100 vote aye....and it would have not cost 1 trillion.

The bill was marketed as a job creator...a stimulus bill....not a pain reliever.

Why did you spin what he said? Nowhere did he say anything about unemployment extension should not have been applied.

Why must you discredit his point by spinning what he said?

Is it becuase you do not want to hear what he has to say and you hope your insulting him will make him go away?

I was responding to the fact that the poster bolded "more generous unemployment benefits" in red, as if extending unemployment benefits were a bad thing.

If that's not what he meant, then I apologize for jumping to conclusions.

The point in my response was to reply to that point only, as it was bolded, not to attempt to argue the rest of the post.

 

[Oldandtired]

So, it's your thought that all the people who have become unemployed due to the Bush Recession should just fuck off and die?

Screw them, right? No unemployment, no welfare, no food, no shelter. Let them and their children die from exposure and starvation.

You are one selfish motherfucker.

Extension of unemployment benefits would have received a 100 vote aye....and it would have not cost 1 trillion.

The bill was marketed as a job creator...a stimulus bill....not a pain reliever.

Why did you spin what he said? Nowhere did he say anything about unemployment extension should not have been applied.

Why must you discredit his point by spinning what he said?

Is it becuase you do not want to hear what he has to say and you hope your insulting him will make him go away?

I was responding to the fact that the poster bolded "more generous unemployment benefits" in red, as if extending unemployment benefits were a bad thing.

If that's not what he meant, then I apologize for jumping to conclusions.

The point in my response was to reply to that point only, as it was bolded, not to attempt to argue the rest of the post.

I see that now......nut I certtainly do not see that he was against extending unemployment benefits. It is the responsibility of Americans to help Americans when times are tough.

But I disagree with doing it when times are not tough.....6 months in a normal economy is long enough to find employment....if you dont, you deserve disabilityu...or you are not trying hard enough.

 

[KissMy]

WHERE ARE THE JOBS???

Not really sure how your graph is indicative of the CBO estimate being wrong.

Without the stimulus we would have lost 10+ million jobs instead of 8+ million jobs.

The only jobs saved were seasonally adjusted off the unemployment charts. They now have a million unemployed seasonally adjusted off the unemployment rate.

 

[Toro]

right, so they don't actually have hard data, basically guess work, predictions and estimates...

What do you think estimating what would have been is? When you take current conditions and try to estimate what would have happened in econometric modeling, there is always going to be an element of error.

Econometrics is not an error-free discipline, but it is grounded in statistical analysis, regressing inputs against variables relating to how we know the economy generally works.

i also take issue with creating, because if the jobs were saved, then it wasn't created. and what type of jobs are these? if i go out and hire some kid to mow my lawn one day this week, can i say i created a job in my community?

As I said in my first post in this thread, the better term would have been "saved" not "created."