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

[NYcarbineer]

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

How can you be worse off if you went from negative GDP growth to positive GDP growth?

 

[boedicca]

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

How can you be worse off if you went from negative GDP growth to positive GDP growth?

When "positive" GDP growth is not enough to absorb new entrants into the workforce while lowering unemployment for those who were already in it, many are "worse off".

Over 3.5M people have Given Up Looking For Work because the economy is not growing fast enough to create decent jobs.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

How can you be worse off if you went from negative GDP growth to positive GDP growth?

When "positive" GDP growth is not enough to absorb new entrants into the workforce while lowering unemployment for those who were already in it, many are "worse off".

Over 3.5M people have Given Up Looking For Work because the economy is not growing fast enough to create decent jobs.

And negative GDP growth absorbs MORE new entrants than positive GDP growth?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Did the OP's figures take into account the tax revenues generated by the 3 million jobs or not??

for starters.

Someone give me a yes, a no, or a we don't want to count that because it ruins our story.

 

[Kuros]

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.

So you don't just disagree with us, you're accusing us of bad faith? Two and a half million jobs at $666 billion is a massive failure when the Republic faces a $14 trillion debt.

Correct. I am.

For decades now we have had to listen to the GOP scream and cry and lie about how tax cuts will not only pay for themselves, but will magically create jobs, increase revenue and cure erectile dysfunction. However, now that Obama has gone and implemented GOP ideas, in an effort to get GOP support, which they withheld, now the GOP and the good little "conservatives" are screaming and crying about how bad the tax cuts were at job creation.

The hypocrisy is really pretty amazing.

So you can look into our souls, from your vantage point behind your computer, and be assured that:

(1) We're GOP partisans

(2) We're criticizing the President out of bad faith, which is to say we do not have any reasonable grounds upon which to dispute the value of $666 billion in Stimulus payments based off the White House's own figures that it created 2.4 million jobs, or that although we may have such grounds, we are ignoring them (all of us) based on animus to the President?

 

[Trajan]

Did the OP's figures take into account the tax revenues generated by the 3 million jobs or not??

for starters.

Someone give me a yes, a no, or a we don't want to count that because it ruins our story.

hello...are you kidding?

 

[boedicca]

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

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

 

[Kuros]

Did the OP's figures take into account the tax revenues generated by the 3 million jobs or not??

for starters.

Someone give me a yes, a no, or a we don't want to count that because it ruins our story.

hello...are you kidding?

Maybe he thinks that because $278k were spent on each job, that every of the 2.4 million jobs is paying in the $278k/year tax bracket?

 

[Trajan]

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.

why yes, of course!!!!!!!!!

 

[skookerasbil]

Dollar to a stale donut Obama WONT be running on the great success of his stimulus.........though I pray like hell he does!!!

 

[Trajan]

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

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

But, it would have been FIVE million without the stimulus and we made all that extra job tax revenue.....

hows my math?

 

[boedicca]

Did the OP's figures take into account the tax revenues generated by the 3 million jobs or not??

for starters.

Someone give me a yes, a no, or a we don't want to count that because it ruins our story.

hello...are you kidding?

Maybe he thinks that because $278k were spent on each job, that every of the 2.4 million jobs is paying in the $278k/year tax bracket?

And that all of these new Millionaire-Billionaires have bought Private Jets.

 

[DontBeStupid]

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.

It also doesn't take in to account any materials purchased for any of those 2.5 million jobs or any assets that were built as a result.

It's like having a crew of 10 build a $500,000 house and at the end crying that you paid $50,000 per worker and have nothing to show for it.

 

[skookerasbil]

Im laughing........the k00ks are throwing out economic numbers like anybody gives a rats ass.

This is a POLITICS forum s0ns...........nobody cares. You pull that crap in a debate and you'll be laughed out of the hall. When elections happen, the people who matter come election time just want to hear if it worked or not. Particularly independents............. hate spin. The only people spinning the jobs numbers on the stimulus are the fcukking k00ks.........and nobody cares. ( although it brings in about 179 people in a night over at MSNBC)

 

[Kuros]

Im laughing........the k00ks are throwing out economic numbers like anybody gives a rats ass.

This is a POLITICS forum s0ns...........nobody cares. You pull that crap in a debate and you'll be laughed out of the hall. When elections happen, the people who matter come election time just want to hear if it worked or not. Particularly independents............. hate spin. The only people spinning the jobs numbers on the stimulus are the fcukking k00ks.........and nobody cares. ( although it brings in about 179 people in a night over at MSNBC)

^ anti-intellectualism at its plainest

Yes, because people who perform economic analysis on spending measures are kooks.

Also, books are for dorks and learning is for squares.

 

[Kuros]

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.

It also doesn't take in to account any materials purchased for any of those 2.5 million jobs or any assets that were built as a result.

It's like having a crew of 10 build a $500,000 house and at the end crying that you paid $50,000 per worker and have nothing to show for it.

That's actually a good point. Because when Obama justifies the Stimulus, he talks first about all the wonderful GDP its created, and rarely ever mentions the jobs created . . .

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08w5J5cnacw]YouTube - ‪Obama's Jobs Program Success‬‏[/ame]

. . . or not.

 

[Avorysuds]

"I will not feed the Troll."

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

Great, a history "Teacher" Trolling the internets.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

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

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

And be specific.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

why yes, of course!!!!!!!!!

Aren't you one of the morons who says cutting taxes increases tax revenues,

because the jobs that are created GENERATE tax revenue?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

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

Link?