Stimulus creates 2.1 million jobs according to the CBO

[Toro]

I think the headline should be "saved" 2.1 million jobs.

In the interest of truth in advertising, it should be 'saved 2.1 mostly government jobs at a cost to the taxpayer of well over the national median annual wage and also the loss of 14 million private sector jobs.

14 million jobs lost, according to the independent forecasting firms, would have been 15-16 million jobs lost without the stimulus.

 

[Gadawg73]

What a great deal this was for current citizens.
We get to borrow the $ and create short term employment.
Our kids and grandkids are left with the bill and have to pay for it.
Our kids are flucked.

 

[ihopehefails]

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

That is because when you spend that much money it is going to have an effect but if it was so good then why are we not at full employment. Why ain't the economy growing? Of course we could have gotten this same effect by nullifying the income tax for one year but I've been told that spending money doesn't do anything except when the government does it but I wonder why one dollar that the government spends doesn't have the same effect one dollar a person spends?

Also, what happens when the government stops spending that money? The bounce stops but when a private person spends that money they usually have a source of money that can replace that dollar spend. That replacement dollar comes in the form of next week's paycheck or increased business revenue. Private dollars being spent never seem to have this problem but government dollars always seem to run out.

 

[Foxfyre]

LWC, your own source admits that the CBO uses the numbers given to them by the government. If Obama tells them that $200 million or billion or whatever will be saved from cuts in Medicare, CBO is required to take them at their word and use those numbers in their calculations. They are not allowed to say that there isn't a chance of a snowball in hell of it working like you say it will work. They have to use the numbers the government furnishes to them. They are not allowed to develop their own.

There is a world of difference between the economic forecasts the CBO engages in and the analysis that it does to score a spending appropriation bill.

CBO is considered to be a good source. Plus, it squares with three other firms that concluded basically the same thing.

Econbrowser: Assessing the Stimulus, One Year In: A View from the Mainstream

Yes. I consult CBO a lot when putting together numbers. For what they do they are very good. But again, they are only allowed to use the numbers the government furnishes to them, and if they are told that such and such an amount will be cut from this or that, they have to factor it in that way. It doesn't matter that they know it is a lie or that it can't or won't be done. They have to do it.

And that is why the CBO estimates are often pretty far off the mark of estimates prepared by other groups.

But you can take it to the bank that when CBO says that a bill will increase the defict by X amount, that the deficit will be increased by at least that much. The CBO numers will almost always be low however because they do have to factor in declared savings that everybody and God knows will never happen.

Just as I believe a careful look at your three sources will show that all three are way off the mark as to what actually happened.

 

[ihopehefails]

LWC, your own source admits that the CBO uses the numbers given to them by the government. If Obama tells them that $200 million or billion or whatever will be saved from cuts in Medicare, CBO is required to take them at their word and use those numbers in their calculations. They are not allowed to say that there isn't a chance of a snowball in hell of it working like you say it will work. They have to use the numbers the government furnishes to them. They are not allowed to develop their own.

There is a world of difference between the economic forecasts the CBO engages in and the analysis that it does to score a spending appropriation bill.

CBO is considered to be a good source. Plus, it squares with three other firms that concluded basically the same thing.

Econbrowser: Assessing the Stimulus, One Year In: A View from the Mainstream

Yes. I consult CBO a lot when putting together numbers. For what they do they are very good. But again, they are only allowed to use the numbers the government furnishes to them, and if they are told that such and such an amount will be cut from this or that, they have to factor it in that way. It doesn't matter that they know it is a lie or that it can't or won't be done. They have to do it.

And that is why the CBO estimates are often pretty far off the mark of estimates prepared by other groups.

But you can take it to the bank that when CBO says that a bill will increase the defict by X amount, that the deficit will be increased by at least that much. The CBO numers will almost always be low however because they do have to factor in declared savings that everybody and God knows will never happen.

Just as I believe a careful look at your three sources will show that all three are way off the mark as to what actually happened.

Another good argument is that you could have cut taxes by the same amount and have the same effect as the CBO is claiming yet the left insist that tax cuts don't work. Unfortunately they don't understand that as the untaxed money gets spent and it is productive work that stimulates the economy not more money because a business hires people when they feel that there is going to be money for them in the future. Stim bills has no such effect to it.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Oh really? The 17% of the nation that are unemployed will be glad to hear this!

 

[Nonelitist]

I am guessing Libs will be telling us to believe this Foxnews story but not the other ones.

Yeah, or you could take a break from your propaganda for a minute to listen to the non-partisan source of the story, the Congressional Budget Office...

Nah, why would you want to do that?


And the story was originally reported by the AP, and run on FoxNews.com.

Now come on guys.. you aren't being honest. Fox News shills for the GOP. They don't run stories like this.

There must be a mistake.

 

[Foxfyre]

The CATO Institute, which I don't believe has ever been found to be significantly off base in financial analysis, linked this article on Facebook and affirmed the information in it:

The 'Stimulus' Actually Raised Unemployment
By ALAN REYNOLDS
Posted 02/19/2010 05:58 PM ET

. . . .A famous 1999 study by Christina Romer, who now heads the Council of Economic Advisers, found the average length of recessions from 1887 to 1929 was only 10.3 months, with the longest lasting 16 months.

Recessions lasted longer during the supposedly enlightened postwar era, with three of them lasting 16 to 21 months.

Keynesian countercyclical schemes have never worked in this country, just as they never worked in Japan.

The issue of "fiscal stimulus" must not be confused with TARP or with the Federal Reserve slashing interest rates and pumping up bank reserves.

One might argue that those Treasury and Fed programs helped prevent a hypothetical depression, but it's impossible to make that argument about ARRA.

The "fiscal stimulus" refers only to a deliberate $862 billion increase in budget deficits. Importantly, only 23% ($200 billion) was spent in 2009, with 47% in 2010 and 30% in later years (according to the Congressional Budget Office this January).

How could the initial $200 billion have possibly had anything to do with the 5.7% rise in fourth-quarter GDP?

The Keynesian fable presumes that faster federal spending and consumers spending their federal benefit checks were the driving forces in the rebound.

Yet the GDP report clearly said the gain "reflected an increase in private inventory investment, a deceleration of imports and an upturn in nonresidential, fixed investment that was partly offset by decelerations in federal government (defense) spending and in personal consumption expenditures."

Since federal spending accounted for exactly zero of the only significant increase GDP, how could such spending possibly have "created or saved" 2 million jobs?

The bill was launched last year amid grandiose promises of "shovel ready" make-work projects.

In reality, as the CBO explains, "five programs accounted for more than 80% of the outlays from ARRA in 2009: Medicaid, unemployment compensation, Social Security ... grants to state and local governments ... and student aid."

In other words, what was labeled a "stimulus" bill was actually a stimulus to government transfer payments — cash and benefits that are primarily rewards for not working, or at least not working too hard. . . .

Investors.com - The 'Stimulus' Actually Raised Unemployment

 

[Toro]

LWC, your own source admits that the CBO uses the numbers given to them by the government. If Obama tells them that $200 million or billion or whatever will be saved from cuts in Medicare, CBO is required to take them at their word and use those numbers in their calculations. They are not allowed to say that there isn't a chance of a snowball in hell of it working like you say it will work. They have to use the numbers the government furnishes to them. They are not allowed to develop their own.

There is a world of difference between the economic forecasts the CBO engages in and the analysis that it does to score a spending appropriation bill.

CBO is considered to be a good source. Plus, it squares with three other firms that concluded basically the same thing.

Econbrowser: Assessing the Stimulus, One Year In: A View from the Mainstream

Yes. I consult CBO a lot when putting together numbers. For what they do they are very good. But again, they are only allowed to use the numbers the government furnishes to them, and if they are told that such and such an amount will be cut from this or that, they have to factor it in that way. It doesn't matter that they know it is a lie or that it can't or won't be done. They have to do it.

And that is why the CBO estimates are often pretty far off the mark of estimates prepared by other groups.

But you can take it to the bank that when CBO says that a bill will increase the defict by X amount, that the deficit will be increased by at least that much. The CBO numers will almost always be low however because they do have to factor in declared savings that everybody and God knows will never happen.

Just as I believe a careful look at your three sources will show that all three are way off the mark as to what actually happened.

CBO estimates are that the deficit this decade will be higher than White House projections. Do you say we shouldn't believe them?

The government's numbers are constructed by professional economists and statisticians. I've known and spoken to a few of these guys over the years. They aren't told what to print.

 

[Toro]

Another good argument is that you could have cut taxes by the same amount and have the same effect as the CBO is claiming yet the left insist that tax cuts don't work. Unfortunately they don't understand that as the untaxed money gets spent and it is productive work that stimulates the economy not more money because a business hires people when they feel that there is going to be money for them in the future. Stim bills has no such effect to it.

Not necessarily true.

When the stimulus checks were sent out, something like 85% was used to pay down debt or to increase savings. When money velocity has collapsed and people are rebuilding their balance sheets, many tax cuts merely transfer debt from the private to the public sector.

 

[Oddball]

LWC, your own source admits that the CBO uses the numbers given to them by the government. If Obama tells them that $200 million or billion or whatever will be saved from cuts in Medicare, CBO is required to take them at their word and use those numbers in their calculations. They are not allowed to say that there isn't a chance of a snowball in hell of it working like you say it will work. They have to use the numbers the government furnishes to them. They are not allowed to develop their own.

There is a world of difference between the economic forecasts the CBO engages in and the analysis that it does to score a spending appropriation bill.

CBO is considered to be a good source. Plus, it squares with three other firms that concluded basically the same thing.

Econbrowser: Assessing the Stimulus, One Year In: A View from the Mainstream

Well, I guess cool charts and graphs are a bit less off-putting than a crystal ball and patchouli oil.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

In a related story, CBO estimated that the crew of the Titanic successfully bailed or discarded 4,000 gallons of water on the night it sank.

 

[Foxfyre]

CBO is considered to be a good source. Plus, it squares with three other firms that concluded basically the same thing.

Econbrowser: Assessing the Stimulus, One Year In: A View from the Mainstream

Yes. I consult CBO a lot when putting together numbers. For what they do they are very good. But again, they are only allowed to use the numbers the government furnishes to them, and if they are told that such and such an amount will be cut from this or that, they have to factor it in that way. It doesn't matter that they know it is a lie or that it can't or won't be done. They have to do it.

And that is why the CBO estimates are often pretty far off the mark of estimates prepared by other groups.

But you can take it to the bank that when CBO says that a bill will increase the defict by X amount, that the deficit will be increased by at least that much. The CBO numers will almost always be low however because they do have to factor in declared savings that everybody and God knows will never happen.

Just as I believe a careful look at your three sources will show that all three are way off the mark as to what actually happened.

CBO estimates are that the deficit this decade will be higher than White House projections. Do you say we shouldn't believe them?

The government's numbers are constructed by professional economists and statisticians. I've known and spoken to a few of these guys over the years. They aren't told what to print.

No, if the CBO says the deficits will be higher than White House projections, they have a very good reason to believe that and they probably have it right.

I have not said that CBO EVER intentionally fudges numbers. I have no reason to believe that.

Nor did I say they are told what to print.

What I said, is they have to accept the numbers given to them by the President and Congress at face value. If the President says they will cut X dollars from Medicare, CBO has to use that number. If the President says they will raise X dollars from a tax increase, CBO has to use that number. CBO is required to score a spending plan according to the numbers in the plan. They are not allowed to substitute their own.

 

[Foxfyre]

In a related story, CBO estimated that the crew of the Titanic successfully bailed or discarded 4,000 gallons of water on the night it sank.

Yes, although I think if we had had the Obama administration dealing with the Titanic, they would have counseled the crew to transfer all that water accumulating in the bow end to the aft end and then would claim they had solved the problem because both ends were sinking together. And because the deck would be nice and level for awhile, some of the people could probably be convinced the danger was over too.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I am guessing Libs will be telling us to believe this Foxnews story but not the other ones.

One does not require the other.

 

[Vast LWC]

The CATO Institute, which I don't believe has ever been found to be significantly off base in financial analysis, linked this article on Facebook and affirmed the information in it:

(Article from Investors.com)

Those are NOT the findings of the CATO Institute, it is an opinion piece written by a particular member of the CATO institute.

Nowhere in that particular piece does the writer cite that the CATO institute did any study that came up with that conclusion.

In fact, the writer alludes to this himself near the end of the opinion piece:

My own estimate, in past articles available at cato.org, is that the stimulus act added about 2 percentage points to the unemployment rate.

Here's the original article.:

The 'Stimulus' Actually Raised Unemployment | Alan Reynolds | Cato Institute: Commentary

 

[Vast LWC]

Yes, although I think if we had had the Obama administration dealing with the Titanic, they would have counseled the crew to transfer all that water accumulating in the bow end to the aft end and then would claim they had solved the problem because both ends were sinking together. And because the deck would be nice and level for awhile, some of the people could probably be convinced the danger was over too.

Though if one were to continue with the metaphor that Obama is an desperate crewman inefficiently trying to save the Titanic, then Bush is the iceberg.

Just saying...

 

[beowolfe]

Yes. I consult CBO a lot when putting together numbers. For what they do they are very good. But again, they are only allowed to use the numbers the government furnishes to them, and if they are told that such and such an amount will be cut from this or that, they have to factor it in that way. It doesn't matter that they know it is a lie or that it can't or won't be done. They have to do it.

And that is why the CBO estimates are often pretty far off the mark of estimates prepared by other groups.

But you can take it to the bank that when CBO says that a bill will increase the defict by X amount, that the deficit will be increased by at least that much. The CBO numers will almost always be low however because they do have to factor in declared savings that everybody and God knows will never happen.

Just as I believe a careful look at your three sources will show that all three are way off the mark as to what actually happened.

CBO estimates are that the deficit this decade will be higher than White House projections. Do you say we shouldn't believe them?

The government's numbers are constructed by professional economists and statisticians. I've known and spoken to a few of these guys over the years. They aren't told what to print.

No, if the CBO says the deficits will be higher than White House projections, they have a very good reason to believe that and they probably have it right.

I have not said that CBO EVER intentionally fudges numbers. I have no reason to believe that.

Nor did I say they are told what to print.

What I said, is they have to accept the numbers given to them by the President and Congress at face value. If the President says they will cut X dollars from Medicare, CBO has to use that number. If the President says they will raise X dollars from a tax increase, CBO has to use that number. CBO is required to score a spending plan according to the numbers in the plan. They are not allowed to substitute their own.

So, when the CBO guesses and you agree with them, they're great and wonderful. When they guess and you disagree with them, they're some evil troll. I get it!!

 

[Vast LWC]

So, when the CBO guesses and you agree with them, they're great and wonderful. When they guess and you disagree with them, they're some evil troll. I get it!!

LOL, I don't think Foxy meant it to sound that way, but that is what it looks like.

Too funny.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Here is an excerpt from the actual CBO Director's assessment of the report, verbatim:

CBO’s Estimates of ARRA’s Impact on Employment and Economic Output

Looking at recorded spending to date as well as estimates of the other effects of ARRA on spending and revenues, CBO has estimated the law’s impact on employment and economic output using evidence about how previous similar policies have affected the economy and various mathematical models that represent the workings of the economy. On that basis, CBO estimates that in the fourth quarter of calendar year 2009, ARRA added between 1.0 million and 2.1 million to the number of workers employed in the United States, and it increased the number of full-time-equivalent (FTE) jobs by between 1.4 million and 3.0 million. Increases in FTE jobs include shifts from part-time to full-time work or overtime and are thus generally larger than increases in the number of employed workers. CBO also estimates that real (inflation-adjusted) gross domestic product (GDP) was 1.5 percent to 3.5 percent higher in the fourth quarter than would have been the case in the absence of ARRA.

Data on actual output and employment during the period since ARRA’s enactment are not as helpful in determining ARRA’s economic effects as might be supposed, because isolating the effects would require knowing what path the economy would have taken in the absence of the law. Because that path cannot be observed, the new data add only limited information about ARRA’s impact. Economic output and employment in 2009 were lower than CBO had projected at the time of enactment. But in CBO’s judgment, that outcome reflects greater-than-projected weakness in the underlying economy rather than lower-than-expected effects of ARRA.

Director’s Blog Blog Archive Estimated Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act on Employment and Economic Output

They sure did give us a really close ranch there didn't they? You cannot even take these numbers seriously.....