Did the stimulus work? A review of the nine best studies on the subject

[Oddball]

Gotta ask, we were supposed to spend money on infrastructure out of this bill, where'd that money go? Why do we need more money on infrastructure?

If you are TRULY interested, then watch this. Or you can be an 'Oddball' and just attack the messenger, like a WingBot.



Rachel Maddow Show

I listened to it for about 4-5 minutes and had to quit, it's just too biased. Are Hannity and Limbaugh just as biased the other way? Sure, I don't listen to them either.

Let's be clear here, repubs are hypocritical sometimes too. One can argue about who is worse, and never settle the question. Same deal for the stimulus, you can argue about where we would have been without it, I can argue about where we are now after the fact. But here's the question, what if we had done better? What if we had taken our time, made sure the money went to the most effective uses, instead of political paybacks? What if it had been managed better, with reports back to us about where the money went? I believe the stimulus was poorly designed, poorly managed, poorly coordinated, and poorly reported back to us. After all, it was a lot of money and we were promised more transparency, no?

RACIST!

 

[Flopper]

By its own stated objectives (unemployment peaking at 8%), the stimulus was an epic fail.

It's also quite representative of why most government programs fail - they don't meet a measurable objective. In the private sector, such programs would be cancelled due to being Bad Investments.

Where did you get 8% as an unemployment goal? I think it was an economic projection.

So, economic projections that didn't come to pass is supposed to be evidence of success?

An economic projection is not a goal. It's an estimate of what is likely to happen. Obama didn't actually project anything other than unemployment would reach ten percent and it would come down. He was right on both counts.

The stimulus was certainly a success since it stopped the massive job losses. Job losses went from 600,000 the month before it was passed to a net job gain today. You can certainly argue that it was a failure because unemployment rates did not reach 8% but had they reached 8% you would contend it was a failure because it didn't reach 7%. However, I think the 600,000/mo that were losing their jobs would certainly consider it a success.

Obama is now planning to introduce a second job stimulus bill which will drive the right off the deep end. It certainly won't pass, but it will provide the ammunition he needs to paint the Republicans as the real job killers.

 

[Oddball]

Where did you get 8% as an unemployment goal? I think it was an economic projection.

So, economic projections that didn't come to pass is supposed to be evidence of success?

An economic projection is not a goal. It's an estimate of what is likely to happen. Obama didn't actually project anything other than unemployment would reach ten percent and it would come down. He was right on both counts.

The stimulus was certainly a success since it stopped the massive job losses. Job losses went from 600,000 the month before it was passed to a net job gain today. You can certainly argue that it was a failure because unemployment rates did not reach 8% but had they reached 8% you would contend it was a failure because it didn't reach 7%. However, I think the 600,000/mo that were losing their jobs would certainly consider it a success.

Obama is now planning to introduce a second job stimulus bill which will drive the right off the deep end. It certainly won't pass, but it will provide the ammunition he needs to paint the Republicans as the real job killers.

What utter tripe.

The projection was 8% and unemployment topped 10%...It remains well above that level if you count those who have run out of unemployment benefits and those who have quit looking for work.

There is absolutely no way you can back up the fantasy of "jobs saved"....That one is the biggest heaps of unfalsifiable, post-hoc-ergo-propter-hoc horseshit of all time.

By any metric used by people who keep their feet planted in Realityville, the succubus was a towering failure...And the only thing that bullshitters like you can do is claim that failure is evidence that even more failure is called for.

 

[Oldstyle]

Where did you get 8% as an unemployment goal? I think it was an economic projection.

So, economic projections that didn't come to pass is supposed to be evidence of success?

An economic projection is not a goal. It's an estimate of what is likely to happen. Obama didn't actually project anything other than unemployment would reach ten percent and it would come down. He was right on both counts.

The stimulus was certainly a success since it stopped the massive job losses. Job losses went from 600,000 the month before it was passed to a net job gain today. You can certainly argue that it was a failure because unemployment rates did not reach 8% but had they reached 8% you would contend it was a failure because it didn't reach 7%. However, I think the 600,000/mo that were losing their jobs would certainly consider it a success.

Obama is now planning to introduce a second job stimulus bill which will drive the right off the deep end. It certainly won't pass, but it will provide the ammunition he needs to paint the Republicans as the real job killers.

I think that Obama's second job stimulus bill will prove once and for all that he has no new ideas on how to fix the economy. You've more or less admitted in your post that this isn't a serious attempt at putting people back to work...this is about getting "ammunition" to try and "paint" Republicans in a bad light for the coming election. Gee, is that what we're looking for now? A leader who cares more about somehow keeping "HIS" job than creating jobs for out of work Americans?

Sorry but I think the American people are getting sick of this game he's playing.

 

[code1211]

Did the stimulus work? A review of the nine best studies on the subject




Here are the nine studies, organized by the conclusion and method used. Click on each one to see my summary of the study, how it reached its conclusions, and potential problems with its approach.




It worked (econometric):
Feyrer and Sacerdote. Chodorow-Reich, Feiveson, Liscow, and Woolston. Wilson.

It worked (modeling):
Congressional Budget Office. Council of Economic Advisors. Zandi and Blinder.

It worked a little bit (modeling):
Oh and Reis.

It didn’t work (econometric):
Conley and Dupor. Taylor.



As the descriptions above make clear, none of the studies are flawless. But while the optimistic studies do, in fact, support the conclusion that the stimulus worked, there is some reason to doubt that the pessimistic studies support the conclusion that it failed. Conley and Dupor found a negative effect on employment and output but, as they concede and critics of the study have emphasized, their results are not statistically significant. Taylor found that the stimulus did not increase government purchases significantly but, as Noah Smith argued, this result could be consistent with the stimulus increasing employment and output. Oh and Reis found a small multiplier for tax transfers of the kind found in the stimulus package, but as they concede, their model produces estimates for key figures that are empirically implausible. Using more plausible figures produces a significantly larger multiplier, meaning the package was more effective than the model initially suggested. Due to these issues, I’m inclined to believe that the preponderance of evidence indicates the stimulus worked.

Why are they using models when there are real actual facts available?

There are two measurables that these studies seem to ignor.

1. The growth of the economy in real dollars as compared to historic times of growth.

2. The increase in tax revenue that always accompanies any economic expansion.

Federal Spending Is Growing Faster Than Federal Revenue

Federal Spending Is Growing Faster Than Federal Revenue
Since 1965, spending has risen constantly. Federal revenues have dropped recently due to the economic recession, but spending has reached a record high.

U.S. Second-Quarter 2011 GDP Report Disappoints - Forex Analysis, Currency Forecast, FX Trading Signal - Action Forex

 

[code1211]

Did the stimulus work? A review of the nine best studies on the subject




Here are the nine studies, organized by the conclusion and method used. Click on each one to see my summary of the study, how it reached its conclusions, and potential problems with its approach.




It worked (econometric):
Feyrer and Sacerdote. Chodorow-Reich, Feiveson, Liscow, and Woolston. Wilson.

It worked (modeling):
Congressional Budget Office. Council of Economic Advisors. Zandi and Blinder.

It worked a little bit (modeling):
Oh and Reis.

It didn’t work (econometric):
Conley and Dupor. Taylor.



As the descriptions above make clear, none of the studies are flawless. But while the optimistic studies do, in fact, support the conclusion that the stimulus worked, there is some reason to doubt that the pessimistic studies support the conclusion that it failed. Conley and Dupor found a negative effect on employment and output but, as they concede and critics of the study have emphasized, their results are not statistically significant. Taylor found that the stimulus did not increase government purchases significantly but, as Noah Smith argued, this result could be consistent with the stimulus increasing employment and output. Oh and Reis found a small multiplier for tax transfers of the kind found in the stimulus package, but as they concede, their model produces estimates for key figures that are empirically implausible. Using more plausible figures produces a significantly larger multiplier, meaning the package was more effective than the model initially suggested. Due to these issues, I’m inclined to believe that the preponderance of evidence indicates the stimulus worked.

Success depends on how you define success. If you are one of the several million who got jobs since the stimulus package became law, then likely you see it as a success. But if you lost your job and remain unemployed, then it was certainly a failure.

So that makes it 2 million for and 15 million against.

 

[code1211]

By its own stated objectives (unemployment peaking at 8%), the stimulus was an epic fail.

It's also quite representative of why most government programs fail - they don't meet a measurable objective. In the private sector, such programs would be cancelled due to being Bad Investments.

In classic Big 0 retro speak, he may soon demand that we believe that what he said was that if we pass his package, then unemployment will not reach 8%. His package passed and we have not reached 8% in a while.

Well, while it would be nice if it did reach 8% again, that is unlikely. It's probably going to hoover around 9% into the forseeable future.

When the Big 0 loses his job, we might find that we reach 8% unemployment again.

 

[code1211]

By its own stated objectives (unemployment peaking at 8%), the stimulus was an epic fail.

It's also quite representative of why most government programs fail - they don't meet a measurable objective. In the private sector, such programs would be cancelled due to being Bad Investments.

Prove that first sentence.

And while you are failing to do that, maybe you can compile the total amount of state government workers who have been laid off by wingnut governors, and see if that accounts for the other 1-2% of unemployment.

Barack Obama's Stimulus Plan: Failing by Its Own Measure - TIME

Back in early January, when Barack Obama was still President-elect, two of his chief economic advisers — leading proponents of a stimulus bill — predicted that the passage of a large economic-aid package would boost the economy and keep the unemployment rate below 8%. It hasn't quite worked out that way. Last month, the jobless rate in the U.S. hit 9.5%, the highest level it has reached since 1983

Read more: Barack Obama's Stimulus Plan: Failing by Its Own Measure - TIME

 

[code1211]

they will just lie and say it didnt work.

Just like they still lie about WNDs in Iraq.

Just like they still lie about Bush taking us to war on lies.

Just like they still lie about outing a CIA agent.

Just like they lie about ACORN

Just like they still lie about the republican party cheating in elections for decades



Lies are just fine with the right

So it's your position that the economy is in great shape?

 

[code1211]

From Wikipedia:

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
Acronym ARRA
Colloquial name(s) The Recovery Act, Stimulus
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, abbreviated ARRA (Pub.L. 111-5) and commonly referred to as the Stimulus or The Recovery Act, is an economic stimulus package enacted by the 111th United States Congress in February 2009 and signed into law on February 17, 2009 by President Barack Obama.

To respond to the late-2000s recession, the primary objective for ARRA was to save and create jobs almost immediately. Secondary objectives were to provide temporary relief programs for those most impacted by the recession and invest in infrastructure, education, health, and ‘green’ energy. The approximate cost of the economic stimulus package was estimated to be $787 Billion at the time of passage. The Act included direct spending in infrastructure, education, health, and energy, federal tax incentives, and expansion of unemployment benefits and other social welfare provisions. The Act also included many items not directly related to economic recovery such as long-term spending projects (e.g. a study of the effectiveness of medical treatments) and other items specifically included by Congress (e.g. a limitation on executive compensation in federally aided banks added by Senator Dodd and Rep. Frank).


Me:
President Obama, speaker Pelosi, Leader Harry Reid, and every other democrat within shouting distance of a microphone told us the stimulus bill would lower unemployment to below 8%. That was the supposed to be the primary objective as stated above. One can argue that many jobs were saved or created, but as you no doubt know the fact is that we have some 2 million fewer people employed now than we did then. Most people would label that as a failure.

Gotta ask, we were supposed to spend money on infrastructure out of this bill, where'd that money go? Why do we need more money on infrastructure?

Is this your admission that Obama never claimed that it would decrease unemployment to under 8%?

I can not find anywhere where Obama ever said the stimulus bill would bring unemployment below 8%. I don't believe Obama ever said this.

I believe he's credited with this because of a Jan. 9, 2009, report called "The Job Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan" from Christina Romer, chairwoman of the president's Council of Economic Advisers, and Jared Bernstein, the vice president's top economic adviser. The report includes a graphic predicting unemployment rates with and without the stimulus. Without the stimulus (the baseline), unemployment was projected to hit about 8.5 percent in 2009 and then continue rising to a peak of about 9 percent in 2010. With the stimulus, they predicted the unemployment rate would peak at just under 8 percent in 2009. As I recall Biden made some comment about the 8% but not Obama.

If you have an actually quote from Obama, not a right wing talk show blurb, I would like to see it.

The Big 0 hired the people who conducted the study and made the prediction.

Does that indicate that he respected and endorsed their conclusions or that he disagreed with and opposed their conclusions?

 

[code1211]

So, economic projections that didn't come to pass is supposed to be evidence of success?

An economic projection is not a goal. It's an estimate of what is likely to happen. Obama didn't actually project anything other than unemployment would reach ten percent and it would come down. He was right on both counts.

The stimulus was certainly a success since it stopped the massive job losses. Job losses went from 600,000 the month before it was passed to a net job gain today. You can certainly argue that it was a failure because unemployment rates did not reach 8% but had they reached 8% you would contend it was a failure because it didn't reach 7%. However, I think the 600,000/mo that were losing their jobs would certainly consider it a success.

Obama is now planning to introduce a second job stimulus bill which will drive the right off the deep end. It certainly won't pass, but it will provide the ammunition he needs to paint the Republicans as the real job killers.

I think that Obama's second job stimulus bill will prove once and for all that he has no new ideas on how to fix the economy. You've more or less admitted in your post that this isn't a serious attempt at putting people back to work...this is about getting "ammunition" to try and "paint" Republicans in a bad light for the coming election. Gee, is that what we're looking for now? A leader who cares more about somehow keeping "HIS" job than creating jobs for out of work Americans?

Sorry but I think the American people are getting sick of this game he's playing.

It's laghable that he's going to give this hyped speech. if he had the answer to the mess, he should have already deployed the solution.

If he has no answers, he needs to give a spectacular speech. He's good at this.

As Dennis Miller said, kind of, okay, he gives a good speech. Let him go out and sell Sham Wows.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The only reason why Unemployment is not now well over 11% is because millions of people have given up looking for work. Only in Obamanomics would a Falling Labor Force Participation Rate be considered success.

I have to keep telling everybody this: Obama is a Progressive success!

The unemployment and deficits rank him as one of the greatest Progressives ever. Progressives do NOT want to do well for the USA.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Did the stimulus work? A review of the nine best studies on the subject




Here are the nine studies, organized by the conclusion and method used. Click on each one to see my summary of the study, how it reached its conclusions, and potential problems with its approach.




It worked (econometric):
Feyrer and Sacerdote. Chodorow-Reich, Feiveson, Liscow, and Woolston. Wilson.

It worked (modeling):
Congressional Budget Office. Council of Economic Advisors. Zandi and Blinder.

It worked a little bit (modeling):
Oh and Reis.

It didn’t work (econometric):
Conley and Dupor. Taylor.



As the descriptions above make clear, none of the studies are flawless. But while the optimistic studies do, in fact, support the conclusion that the stimulus worked, there is some reason to doubt that the pessimistic studies support the conclusion that it failed. Conley and Dupor found a negative effect on employment and output but, as they concede and critics of the study have emphasized, their results are not statistically significant. Taylor found that the stimulus did not increase government purchases significantly but, as Noah Smith argued, this result could be consistent with the stimulus increasing employment and output. Oh and Reis found a small multiplier for tax transfers of the kind found in the stimulus package, but as they concede, their model produces estimates for key figures that are empirically implausible. Using more plausible figures produces a significantly larger multiplier, meaning the package was more effective than the model initially suggested. Due to these issues, I’m inclined to believe that the preponderance of evidence indicates the stimulus worked.

Do you know what the term the preponderance of evidence means?

 

[Flopper]

So, economic projections that didn't come to pass is supposed to be evidence of success?

An economic projection is not a goal. It's an estimate of what is likely to happen. Obama didn't actually project anything other than unemployment would reach ten percent and it would come down. He was right on both counts.

The stimulus was certainly a success since it stopped the massive job losses. Job losses went from 600,000 the month before it was passed to a net job gain today. You can certainly argue that it was a failure because unemployment rates did not reach 8% but had they reached 8% you would contend it was a failure because it didn't reach 7%. However, I think the 600,000/mo that were losing their jobs would certainly consider it a success.

Obama is now planning to introduce a second job stimulus bill which will drive the right off the deep end. It certainly won't pass, but it will provide the ammunition he needs to paint the Republicans as the real job killers.

What utter tripe.

The projection was 8% and unemployment topped 10%...It remains well above that level if you count those who have run out of unemployment benefits and those who have quit looking for work.

There is absolutely no way you can back up the fantasy of "jobs saved"....That one is the biggest heaps of unfalsifiable, post-hoc-ergo-propter-hoc horseshit of all time.

By any metric used by people who keep their feet planted in Realityville, the succubus was a towering failure...And the only thing that bullshitters like you can do is claim that failure is evidence that even more failure is called for.

The bill performed as promised, to stop the job lost. Nowhere did the president promise 8% unemployment. The council of economic advisers estimated it would go below 8% and qualified their estimate pointing out the margin of error and the many assumptions the estimate was based. The stimulus reduced the monthly job loss from 600,000 a month to 114,000 a month job gain. It performed exactly as Obama said and yes it was a success. The only flaw in the stimulus was it was not large enough.

 

[Oldstyle]

An economic projection is not a goal. It's an estimate of what is likely to happen. Obama didn't actually project anything other than unemployment would reach ten percent and it would come down. He was right on both counts.

The stimulus was certainly a success since it stopped the massive job losses. Job losses went from 600,000 the month before it was passed to a net job gain today. You can certainly argue that it was a failure because unemployment rates did not reach 8% but had they reached 8% you would contend it was a failure because it didn't reach 7%. However, I think the 600,000/mo that were losing their jobs would certainly consider it a success.

Obama is now planning to introduce a second job stimulus bill which will drive the right off the deep end. It certainly won't pass, but it will provide the ammunition he needs to paint the Republicans as the real job killers.

What utter tripe.

The projection was 8% and unemployment topped 10%...It remains well above that level if you count those who have run out of unemployment benefits and those who have quit looking for work.

There is absolutely no way you can back up the fantasy of "jobs saved"....That one is the biggest heaps of unfalsifiable, post-hoc-ergo-propter-hoc horseshit of all time.

By any metric used by people who keep their feet planted in Realityville, the succubus was a towering failure...And the only thing that bullshitters like you can do is claim that failure is evidence that even more failure is called for.

The bill performed as promised, to stop the job lost. Nowhere did the president promise 8% unemployment. The council of economic advisers estimated it would go below 8% and qualified their estimate pointing out the margin of error and the many assumptions the estimate was based. The stimulus reduced the monthly job loss from 600,000 a month to 114,000 a month job gain. It performed exactly as Obama said and yes it was a success. The only flaw in the stimulus was it was not large enough.

How do you figure? Since the Obama stimulus was passed the US has lost two and a half million jobs. The stimulus was an abject failure. Germany refused to do a huge stimulus like we did, calling it fiscally unsound. So we spent a trillion on stimulus and they didn't. So guess who's economy recovered quicker...theirs or ours? Sorry, Flopper but this Administrations Keynesian "experiment" was a flop.

 

[sparky]

Did it work?

well, how's about a real world example

i'm on a shovel ready fed stim job, bacon davis prevailing wage, etc

we're turning an old manufacturing plant , which covered acres and included multiple buildings, into a hospital and a shopping mall

so who gets what might be the Q being asked?

well, we're losey with H1B help here, vs. local trades people, but that'll die out in time

the hospital is a sure thing, seeing as turning our elderly into a $$$ is as well

the shopping mall will simply provide more cha cha , cash register ,sales , et all menial jobs

the local politicians show up lauding the whole shebang as thier baby saving us wee folk

the state officals and utilities are doing backflips for it all

the parent construction company is milking the federal teat, and most likley will go before them w/ hat in hand , because they're operating on fairy tale deadlines, and know the powers that be will cough up to get'rdone

so, i'm basically in the middle of supply side economics in action here, and all i see is the chosen few with connections riding off into any economic sunset

~S~

 

[SFC Ollie]

An economic projection is not a goal. It's an estimate of what is likely to happen. Obama didn't actually project anything other than unemployment would reach ten percent and it would come down. He was right on both counts.

The stimulus was certainly a success since it stopped the massive job losses. Job losses went from 600,000 the month before it was passed to a net job gain today. You can certainly argue that it was a failure because unemployment rates did not reach 8% but had they reached 8% you would contend it was a failure because it didn't reach 7%. However, I think the 600,000/mo that were losing their jobs would certainly consider it a success.

Obama is now planning to introduce a second job stimulus bill which will drive the right off the deep end. It certainly won't pass, but it will provide the ammunition he needs to paint the Republicans as the real job killers.

What utter tripe.

The projection was 8% and unemployment topped 10%...It remains well above that level if you count those who have run out of unemployment benefits and those who have quit looking for work.

There is absolutely no way you can back up the fantasy of "jobs saved"....That one is the biggest heaps of unfalsifiable, post-hoc-ergo-propter-hoc horseshit of all time.

By any metric used by people who keep their feet planted in Realityville, the succubus was a towering failure...And the only thing that bullshitters like you can do is claim that failure is evidence that even more failure is called for.

The bill performed as promised, to stop the job lost. Nowhere did the president promise 8% unemployment. The council of economic advisers estimated it would go below 8% and qualified their estimate pointing out the margin of error and the many assumptions the estimate was based. The stimulus reduced the monthly job loss from 600,000 a month to 114,000 a month job gain. It performed exactly as Obama said and yes it was a success. The only flaw in the stimulus was it was not large enough.

417,000 this week, and this is what was promised?

 

[Synthaholic]

I'll score that a big "NO, I DON'T".

I'm sure you also don't understand that a famously politically biased op-ed writer just might cherry pick which studies he determined to be the "nine best".

Ah, messenger attacking.

The last desperate grasp of the defeated.

I can also separate fact from opinion, which is what Klein's writing is.


Apparently, this observation has escaped you, in favor of party man pop-pom waving.

You haven't offered any facts.

 

[Synthaholic]

Gotta ask, we were supposed to spend money on infrastructure out of this bill, where'd that money go? Why do we need more money on infrastructure?

If you are TRULY interested, then watch this. Or you can be an 'Oddball' and just attack the messenger, like a WingBot.



Rachel Maddow Show

I listened to it for about 4-5 minutes and had to quit, it's just too biased. Are Hannity and Limbaugh just as biased the other way? Sure, I don't listen to them either.

Let's be clear here, repubs are hypocritical sometimes too. One can argue about who is worse, and never settle the question. Same deal for the stimulus, you can argue about where we would have been without it, I can argue about where we are now after the fact. But here's the question, what if we had done better? What if we had taken our time, made sure the money went to the most effective uses, instead of political paybacks? What if it had been managed better, with reports back to us about where the money went? I believe the stimulus was poorly designed, poorly managed, poorly coordinated, and poorly reported back to us. After all, it was a lot of money and we were promised more transparency, no?

Did you watch her showing Republican Congressmen railing against the stimulus in Washington, then praising the stimulus to their constituents, and posing with huge stimulus checks?

Did you watch that far?

And what is the bias in that, that you object to? because she's caught numerous Republicans being hypocrites? Is that the bias?

 

[Synthaholic]

From Wikipedia:

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
Acronym ARRA
Colloquial name(s) The Recovery Act, Stimulus
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, abbreviated ARRA (Pub.L. 111-5) and commonly referred to as the Stimulus or The Recovery Act, is an economic stimulus package enacted by the 111th United States Congress in February 2009 and signed into law on February 17, 2009 by President Barack Obama.

To respond to the late-2000s recession, the primary objective for ARRA was to save and create jobs almost immediately. Secondary objectives were to provide temporary relief programs for those most impacted by the recession and invest in infrastructure, education, health, and ‘green’ energy. The approximate cost of the economic stimulus package was estimated to be $787 Billion at the time of passage. The Act included direct spending in infrastructure, education, health, and energy, federal tax incentives, and expansion of unemployment benefits and other social welfare provisions. The Act also included many items not directly related to economic recovery such as long-term spending projects (e.g. a study of the effectiveness of medical treatments) and other items specifically included by Congress (e.g. a limitation on executive compensation in federally aided banks added by Senator Dodd and Rep. Frank).


Me:
President Obama, speaker Pelosi, Leader Harry Reid, and every other democrat within shouting distance of a microphone told us the stimulus bill would lower unemployment to below 8%. That was the supposed to be the primary objective as stated above. One can argue that many jobs were saved or created, but as you no doubt know the fact is that we have some 2 million fewer people employed now than we did then. Most people would label that as a failure.

Gotta ask, we were supposed to spend money on infrastructure out of this bill, where'd that money go? Why do we need more money on infrastructure?

Is this your admission that Obama never claimed that it would decrease unemployment to under 8%?

I can not find anywhere where Obama ever said the stimulus bill would bring unemployment below 8%. I don't believe Obama ever said this.

I believe he's credited with this because of a Jan. 9, 2009, report called "The Job Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan" from Christina Romer, chairwoman of the president's Council of Economic Advisers, and Jared Bernstein, the vice president's top economic adviser. The report includes a graphic predicting unemployment rates with and without the stimulus. Without the stimulus (the baseline), unemployment was projected to hit about 8.5 percent in 2009 and then continue rising to a peak of about 9 percent in 2010. With the stimulus, they predicted the unemployment rate would peak at just under 8 percent in 2009. As I recall Biden made some comment about the 8% but not Obama.

If you have an actually quote from Obama, not a right wing talk show blurb, I would like to see it.

Thank you for doing the research.