Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Federal stimulus programs are sustaining as many as 1.6 million jobs this year, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says in a new report.

The assessment comes after weeks during which the White House has faced skepticism about its claims that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) has created or saved more than a million US jobs.

Although the CBO report stamps the White House estimates as credible, it’s not a full-fledged endorsement of the Obama administration view.

The study’s larger message is that the Main Street impact of the $787 billion stimulus is very hard to gauge. The White House might be right. Critics who say the stimulus is doing nothing for jobs are probably wrong. But beyond that, the CBO’s margin of uncertainty is huge.

Citing different estimates of how effective the stimulus is, Congress’s economists say the number of jobs created could span anywhere from 600,000, at the lower end, to the 1.6 million high-end figure.

http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/ ... -new-jobs/

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/106xx/doc106 ... 0-ARRA.pdf

So we've spent $491,875 PER JOB to save 1.6 million jobs?

Only a DONK would call that a smart buy.

AZGrizFan wrote:So we've spent $491,875 PER JOB to save 1.6 million jobs?

Only a DONK would call that a smart buy.

We haven't spent all the stimulus money yet. Why must CONKS get this explained to them in every stimulus thread?

Skjellyfetti wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:So we've spent $491,875 PER JOB to save 1.6 million jobs?

Only a DONK would call that a smart buy.

We haven't spent all the stimulus money yet. Why must CONKS get this explained to them in every stimulus thread?

How much have we spent? It doesn't say it in either the article or the document you attached.

OK. According to the Huffington Post, they've spent $100 billion as of 11/30. That means we've spent $62,500 for every job saved or created. And that's using their HIGHEST estimate. On the low end it's closer to $167,000/job.

STILL not a good deal, but typical of a government that prides itself in waste and fraud.

Doesn't surprise me at all that YOU'D celebrate that, KY.

Well, if every dollar spent was supposed to go to job creation... you'd have a point.

It wasn't a job creation bill... it was a bill intended to stimulate the economy. Certainly job creation is a large part of that... but, not the only part. For instance... tax cuts are a HUGE part of the bill (over $300,000,000,000-- which I'm sure will be quite a shock to you) but don't directly create or save any jobs.

Check out all that it's doing in Arizona. Pretty cool.

http://az.gov/app/trans360/start.xhtml? ... ation=join

Skjellyfetti wrote:

Federal stimulus programs are sustaining as many as 1.6 million jobs this year, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says in a new report.

The assessment comes after weeks during which the White House has faced skepticism about its claims that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) has created or saved more than a million US jobs.

Although the CBO report stamps the White House estimates as credible, it’s not a full-fledged endorsement of the Obama administration view.

The study’s larger message is that the Main Street impact of the $787 billion stimulus is very hard to gauge. The White House might be right. Critics who say the stimulus is doing nothing for jobs are probably wrong. But beyond that, the CBO’s margin of uncertainty is huge.

Citing different estimates of how effective the stimulus is, Congress’s economists say the number of jobs created could span anywhere from 600,000, at the lower end, to the 1.6 million high-end figure.

http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/ ... -new-jobs/

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/106xx/doc106 ... 0-ARRA.pdf

"Sustained" jobs? You mean those worthless government bureaucrats that the unions won't allow to be fired?

At least corporate CEOs think and plan for the next fiscal quarter. The donks and few remaining village idiots who still believe this shit don't think past the next news cycle or the next handout, as the case may be.

Skjellyfetti wrote:

Federal stimulus programs are sustaining as many as 1.6 million jobs this year, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says in a new report.

The assessment comes after weeks during which the White House has faced skepticism about its claims that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) has created or saved more than a million US jobs.

Although the CBO report stamps the White House estimates as credible, it’s not a full-fledged endorsement of the Obama administration view.

The study’s larger message is that the Main Street impact of the $787 billion stimulus is very hard to gauge. The White House might be right. Critics who say the stimulus is doing nothing for jobs are probably wrong. But beyond that, the CBO’s margin of uncertainty is huge.

Citing different estimates of how effective the stimulus is, Congress’s economists say the number of jobs created could span anywhere from 600,000, at the lower end, to the 1.6 million high-end figure.

http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/ ... -new-jobs/

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/106xx/doc106 ... 0-ARRA.pdf

I'm paraphrasing here, but effectively "give us nearly a trillion dollars, comrades - we don't know for sure if it's effective, but we're nuclear weapon close on the estimates of jobs created".

Try to get a proposal like that to fly in any company with no method to measure the results, payback, NPV, IRR, etc.

Question? What happens to those "sustained" jobs when stimulus dollars run out???














This just in...another stimulus package is being prepared to "sustain" the previous stimulus...

Interesting...

I have a feeling that regardless of any facts/figures, certain people would discount any job claims, either good or bad

dbackjon wrote:Interesting...

I have a feeling that regardless of any facts/figures, certain people would discount any job claims, either good or bad

I get the same feeling.

We just found out last night that federal "disbursement" of stimulus funds does not necessarily equate to actual $$ spent. (This is actually NOT Obama's fault.) There's a CA state energy agency that got over a million for projects, has spent about $70K on office expenses, but has not actually obligated anything on projects. The $$ MUST be spent by a deadline sometime next year, and they claim it will be, but there's no proof that they're doing anything but dragging their feet.

And they claim "recovery." Give me a break. This one isn't Obama's fault, but to claim "recovery" when there's no tangible proof is dishonest. The CA Unemployment Office is over $7B in the red, spending over $20M every DAY, and the feds claim "recovery?" Lying appears to be a hallmark of this administration.

dbackjon wrote:Interesting...

I have a feeling that regardless of any facts/figures, certain people would discount any job claims, either good or bad

I'm not discounting the stimulus PER SE, but rather how nebulous the accounting is. What was baseline employment? How many jobs would have been gained or lost without the stimulus? Tough questions, no doubt, but it's very difficult to take credit for something when you don't really know where you started or have some method of measuring the effectiveness of the spending. From where I sit, the only thing I really see happening locally are public works projects with paving and bridge repair happening - those would have happened anyway, but the timeline likely was pulled forward. Outside of that, I've been watching local unemployment levels continue to rise past 12%, so either more people are opting out of the job market or things are getting worse.

dbackjon wrote:Interesting...

I have a feeling that regardless of any facts/figures, certain people would discount any job claims, either good or bad

The Stimulus was primarily for government jobs. I'm sure the figures are correct and government and union workers are happy about that. Obama has stated he is looking into the private sector jobs now. Being very few of the Obama staff has ever worked a non-government job, he is actually opening up to looking into jobs in the private sector.

CNN Money Link

The President announces White House will convene a meeting of business leaders, economists and labor representatives to brainstorm about job creation.

Gil Dobie wrote:The President announces White House will convene a meeting of business leaders, economists and labor representatives to brainstorm about job creation.

Considering he has assembled a cabinet with the least amount of private sector experience since the turn of the century. He better be meeting with someone who knows what the hell they are doing.

ASUG8 wrote: How many jobs would have been gained or lost without the stimulus?

The report estimates that the jobless rate would now be anywhere from 0.3 to 0.9 percent higher, without the Recovery Act.

From the article in the OP.

ASUG8 wrote:From where I sit, the only thing I really see happening locally are public works projects with paving and bridge repair happening - those would have happened anyway, but the timeline likely was pulled forward.

That's exactly what the stimulus is intended to do. The economy would recover eventually with or without the stimulus package... it's intended to speed up the recovery. The jobs created by the stimulus bill (largely public works projects like you say) aren't permanent jobs. The goal of the job creation in the stimulus bill is it will give people work until the economy recovers and businesses start rehiring again.

Skjellyfetti wrote:

ASUG8 wrote: How many jobs would have been gained or lost without the stimulus?

The report estimates that the jobless rate would now be anywhere from 0.3 to 0.9 percent higher, without the Recovery Act.

From the article in the OP.

ASUG8 wrote:From where I sit, the only thing I really see happening locally are public works projects with paving and bridge repair happening - those would have happened anyway, but the timeline likely was pulled forward.

That's exactly what the stimulus is intended to do. The economy would recover eventually with or without the stimulus package... it's intended to speed up the recovery. The jobs created by the stimulus bill (largely public works projects like you say) are permanent jobs. The goal of the job creation in the stimulus bill is it will give people work until the economy recovers and businesses start rehiring again.

But wouldn't the economy recover faster if, instead of spending $62,500-$167,000 to save 1.6million jobs, we gave 3.2million people $33,750-$83,500 in cash to spend into the economy in an effort to stimulate job creation? Why does it have to go through the middle-man (govt) to be effective? What would you do with $33k-$83k in your pocket & no job?...

We will not have real recovery until fundamentals of the economy are fixed. Wages equal demand and wages have pretty much been stagnant since the early 70's. This has been a massive redistribution of wealth upwards and any stimulus going forward needs to be from the bottom up and directed at strengthening the middle class.

Appaholic wrote:
But wouldn't the economy recover faster if, instead of spending $62,500-$167,000 to save 1.6million jobs, we gave 3.2million people $33,750-$83,500 in cash to spend into the economy in an effort to stimulate job creation? Why does it have to go through the middle-man (govt) to be effective? What would you do with $33k-$83k in your pocket & no job?...

As I've already said in this thread... the stimulus bill isn't a job creation bill. It's an economic recovery bill... job creation is a part of that (and a large part) but not the only part.

There are over $300 billion in tax cuts to individuals and businesses out of the $787 billion in the bill. That's the way the government "gives" money to individuals and businesses. That's a pretty damn significant chunk of the bill... and something that is routinely overlooked.

kalm wrote:We will not have real recovery until fundamentals of the economy are fixed. Wages equal demand and wages have pretty much been stagnant since the early 70's. This has been a massive redistribution of wealth upwards and any stimulus going forward needs to be from the bottom up and directed at strengthening the middle class.

I agree completley.

The one positive about the stimulus is that it, along with social safety net programs, so far has prevented a recession from turning into a second Great Depression. But we're not out of the woods yet.

Appaholic wrote:But wouldn't the economy recover faster if, instead of spending $62,500-$167,000 to save 1.6million jobs, we gave 3.2million people $33,750-$83,500 in cash to spend into the economy in an effort to stimulate job creation? Why does it have to go through the middle-man (govt) to be effective? What would you do with $33k-$83k in your pocket & no job?...

I thought about that idea too. It wouldn't help anything but the US Government if we tried it. In times like these, everyone is moving towards saving and paying off debt. Not that that is a bad thing, but the free spending days are behind us for a while. If everyone got $50,000; 20% of people would spend it as soon as they got it on crap they have always wanted but never really needed. Not a large enough portion to really get a substantial kick start going in the GDP. I call that 20% poor people.

60% (middle class) of the people would pay off credit card debt, mortgages, or car payments and that would get some of the debt off of the car industry and banking industry. Those businesses then could pay back the TARP money loans. The net winner their is the very industry that gave the loans or the "free money" in the first place, and they are only getting back 60% of what they gave away.

The final 20% don't "need" the money but would be happy to stick it in their war chest for retirement and doing little to spur the economy.

bobbythekidd wrote:

Appaholic wrote:But wouldn't the economy recover faster if, instead of spending $62,500-$167,000 to save 1.6million jobs, we gave 3.2million people $33,750-$83,500 in cash to spend into the economy in an effort to stimulate job creation? Why does it have to go through the middle-man (govt) to be effective? What would you do with $33k-$83k in your pocket & no job?...

I thought about that idea too. It wouldn't help anything but the US Government if we tried it. In times like these, everyone is moving towards saving and paying off debt. Not that that is a bad thing, but the free spending days are behind us for a while. If everyone got $50,000; 20% of people would spend it as soon as they got it on crap they have always wanted but never really needed. Not a large enough portion to really get a substantial kick start going in the GDP. I call that 20% poor people.

60% (middle class) of the people would pay off credit card debt, mortgages, or car payments and that would get some of the debt off of the car industry and banking industry. Those businesses then could pay back the TARP money loans. The net winner their is the very industry that gave the loans or the "free money" in the first place, and they are only getting back 60% of what they gave away.

The final 20% don't "need" the money but would be happy to stick it in their war chest for retirement and doing little to spur the economy.

The same is true of tax cuts as stimulus.

True, Bobdammit - the chart below is a little dated, but generally shows that we're beginning to see a change in being strictly a consumption country - that sucks for huge exporters like China, but I really don't care since they've been reaping the economic rewards of our excess for many years now. Now they get the opportunity to hang on to some of our debt.




http://www.dailymarkets.com/economy/200 ... ings-rate/

Here's another showing just how consumption-based the US became relative to our European counterparts. Only Japan and Canada are close



http://seekingalpha.com/article/112604- ... vings-rate