http://cnsnews.com/news/article/cbo-jobs-created-and-saved-stimulus-cost
QuoteCBO: Jobs Created and Saved By Stimulus Cost At Minimum An Average of $228,055 Each
Thursday, February 24, 2011
By Matt Cover
President Barack Obama signed an economic stimulus law, now determined by the CBO to cost $821 billion, at the Denver Museum of Nature & Science on Feb. 17, 2009. (AP photo)
(CNSNews.com) - The jobs created and saved by the economic stimulus law that President Barack Obama signed on Feb. 17, 2009 cost at a minimum an average of $228,055 each, according to data released yesterday by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).
In a report released Wednesdayâ€"“Estimated Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act on Employment and Economic Output from October Through December 2010â€â€"the CBO said it now estimates the stimulus law cost a total of $821 billion, up from CBO’s original estimate that the stimulus would cost $787 billion.
In the same report, the CBO estimated that in the fourth quarter of 2010 there were somewhere between 1.3 million and 3.5 million people who were then employed who would not have been had the stimulus not been enacted. “CBO estimates,†says the report, “that ARRA’s policies had the following effects in the fourth quarter of calendar year 2010: … Increased the number of people employed by between 1.3 million and 3.5 million.â€
This estimate seeks to state the net impact the stimulus had on the number of people employed in the United States as a result of the stimulus, taking into account not only the new jobs believed to be created and the existing jobs believed to be killed by the stimulus, but also the existing jobs that were saved that otherwise would have been lost.
The CBO’s estimate that there were 1.3 million to 3.5 million people employed in the fourth quarter of 2010 who would not have been were it not for the stimulus represents a decline from the 1.4 million to 3.6 million people CBO estimated were employed as a result the stimulus during the third quarter of 2010. (See Table 1 in the report.) In fact, CBO now estimates that the apogee of the stimulus’s net job-creating-and-saving power occurred in the third quarter of 2010 when it believes somewhere between 1.4 million and 3.6 million people had jobs they would not have had except for the stimulus.
Thus, the $821 billion cost of the stimulus divided by the maximum of 3.6 million jobs the CBO believes the stimulus may have saved or created equals an average of $228,055 per job.
At the lower end of the CBO’s top job-creating-and-saving estimate for the stimulusâ€"1.4 million jobsâ€"the jobs would cost an average of $586,428 a piece.
In February 2009, when President Obama signed the stimulus law the national unemployment rate was 8.2 percent, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. In January 2011, the national unemployment rate was 9.0 percent.
Wow, the program cost 34 BILLION more than what the taxpayer was told.
I'm shocked.
We should have spent a lot more. In fact, there should have been another stimulus package, but such wasn't politically feasible, so the Fed has been trying to do it through monetary policy, which is messy and, I think, more costly.
We needed something approaching the scale of FDR's approach to the Great Depression. Hopefully the little done was enough. The stock market is happy, but that wealth isn't reaching the real economy - yet.
Yes it spent the money and created those jobs. That money also paid for the infrastructure that those jobs are building and such. We get a lot more than those jobs for the money. Our economy was crashing to complain about the overall stimulus program should make people laugh and point at you.
There is a chunk of stimulus money that still hasn't been spent yet. For example, we just rejected $2.4 billion of it.
Quote from: stephendare on February 25, 2011, 11:25:39 AM
reliably dumb news from cns.
Well shit, if you divided the number of jobs created by Jacksonville by the total amount of money spent in the entire city every year, then we would all be spending a couple of hundred thousand dollars apiece too.
Of course there is no accounting for the number of firms and companies that were saved from closing as a result of the republican depression that will go on hiring people and paying them for decades to come.
This is the one thing I really hate about the right wing lie machine.
It just never gets tired of making claims that are literally ludicrous.
Quote from: JeffreyS on February 25, 2011, 11:32:20 AM
Yes it spent the money and created those jobs. That money also paid for the infrastructure that those jobs are building and such. We get a lot more than those jobs for the money. Our economy was crashing to complain about the overall stimulus program should make people laugh and point at you.
Thanks guys! Took care of everything I wanted to say. Also, 34 billion is a lot to YOU. Relative to the federal budget, its not.
This issue is a good illustration of the differing political philosophies current in our country. I find the stimulus spending to be outrageous and wasteful. These are CBO numbers, not some biased rhetoric outlet.
I am also baffled by (but not surprosed at) both Jimmy's and StephenDare!'s responses (as I'm sure they are baffled by mine). Jimmy's proposal to spend MORE money (just print it up) just strikes me as numbingly irresponsible. I don't see how adding another trillion in debt at $250k to $500k a job would be helpful at all. In fact, I don't see how President Obama's planned debt will work out over the next 2 to 4 years. The interest alone is growing beyond our ability to pay at the same time that we are cashing in the bonds in the SS fund to pay benefits. Tell me how that debt will not result in reduced benefits for SS recipients? As for "dumb news" and "right wing lie machine", well that's not a proposal or a responsible argument. How much the city budget is has no correlation with a single Federal law, the Obama stimulus package.
The Dems need to come up with a serious answer to these problems on the Federal level or we will be stuck with a disaster.
It seems pretty elementary that we must get the Federal budget under control and that we must do it through negotiation and a combination of spending cuts (mostly) and revenue enhancement (less).
Quote from: thelakelander on February 25, 2011, 11:36:11 AM
There is a chunk of stimulus money that still hasn't been spent yet. For example, we just rejected $2.4 billion of it.
Touche.
I posted to start an interesting conversation. I should have realized that SD would immediately try to discredit the facts, make insulting remarks, and of course blame republicans.
Sudden interest in the deficit? really? I believe I started posting on MJ with my opinions on the deficit and the fact that this stimulus would not lower the unemployment rate nor would it have the impact on sustainable job creation that only private enterprise can do.
The immediate hissie fit thrown by Stephen shows that he is incapable of having a mature conversation about the matter. What should we expect?
Thanks Jimmy, Jeffrey, and Lake for providing your thoughts. I may disagree with some or all, but appreciate your input.
Yep...stimulus fail:
(http://gatewaypundit.rightnetwork.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/real-unemployment.jpg)
Oh, and about those deficits:
(http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/wapoobamabudget1.jpg)
And that's not even taking the 1.4 trillion/10 year Obamacare deficit!
Again those crazy CBO numbers:
QuoteAccording to CBO numbers in its Budget and Economic Outlook published this month, the cost of Operation Iraqi Freedom was $709 billion for military and related activities, including training of Iraqi forces and diplomatic operations.
The projected cost of the stimulus, which passed in February 2009, and is expected to have a shelf life of two years, was $862 billion.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/08/30/cbo-years-iraq-war-cost-stimulus-act/
StephenDare!,
Ireally don't want to get into just another pissing match. Real debate is done by exchanging facts and ideas. your opinion of what I was thinking two or three years ago, personal insults, and sweeping proclamations of "balderdash!" do not equate to real debate. I would appreciate it if you would allow me to make my own arguments, rather than you telling me what my opinion is (or was). I sincerely mean no offense, and I assume that you are doing this inintentionally.
My argument stands that our current debt lever is at or nearing record levels by the various forms of measurement. We are currently cashing in the bonds in the social security reserve fund which means that it is an expense to the Federal government. Interest on the debt continues to grow annuallyThere is a real danger of a downgrading of the credit worthiness of the US government which would hike the debt interest payments into the stratosphere. Our (new) payments into social security by the Federal budget will only continue to grow. We could ALL be in real financial trouble here if we don't have an honest and realistic debate about how to fix this.
So to break the last 30 years' worth of fiscal matters for the US down into over-simplified terms, would it be safe to posit the following?
Reagan started it
Bush 41 was practically irrelevant. But probably made it worse a la Desert Storm
Clinton came close to fixing it
Bush 43 ruined it
Obama is doing more of the same
Can we at least agree on that?
I think nafta really hurts clintons case .
clinton may also been more successful than his policies due to the.com boom .but I think we can agree he did the best out of the list you provided .
Quote from: Doctor_K on February 25, 2011, 03:06:20 PM
So to break the last 30 years' worth of fiscal matters for the US down into over-simplified terms, would it be safe to posit the following?
Reagan started it
Bush 41 was practically irrelevant. But probably made it worse a la Desert Storm
Clinton came close to fixing it
Bush 43 ruined it
Obama is doing more of the same
Can we at least agree on that?
I would respectfully disagree. I would also say... Enough with the damn blame game already. We keep pointing fingers across the aisle rather than at our own failings. In addition... world events have strange way of getting in the way of our best plans... regardless of party.
QuoteOther than trying to manage the shitstorm (that could still potentially go south) left behind by the outright looting during the Bush Administration, what do you think Obama has done thats wrong for the economy?
He didn't get us out of Afghanistan and Iraq. That would have helped a lot.
Quote from: stephendare on February 25, 2011, 03:14:32 PM
Quote from: Doctor_K on February 25, 2011, 03:06:20 PM
So to break the last 30 years' worth of fiscal matters for the US down into over-simplified terms, would it be safe to posit the following?
Reagan started it
Bush 41 was practically irrelevant. But probably made it worse a la Desert Storm
Clinton came close to fixing it
Bush 43 ruined it
Obama is doing more of the same
Can we at least agree on that?
Other than trying to manage the shitstorm (that could still potentially go south) left behind by the outright looting during the Bush Administration, what do you think Obama has done thats wrong for the economy?
My apologies - I was focusing more on the debt/deficit part of it, rather than the economy as a whole.
You are entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.
*yawn* will someone do everyone a favor and wake us up when "Y'all spent so much that it's perfectly OK if we spend quadruple that in half the amount of time!" ceases to be considered a valid argument? Much obliged.
I think we all agree we need to make cuts. Some of us think the savings should come from cuts to the Mideast destroy, rebuild, kill brown people sacrifice our soldiers project. While some want to cut investing in America and Americans. Just different philosophies that's all.
Quote from: JeffreyS on February 25, 2011, 09:14:15 PM
I think we all agree we need to make cuts. Some of us think the savings should come from cuts to the Mideast destroy, rebuild, kill brown people sacrifice our soldiers project. While some want to cut investing in America and Americans. Just different philosophies that's all.
Meh...the only problem with that theory is that there were two, full, unadulterated years to make that happen. Not only did it not happen, it wasn't even on the radar as as serious priority. Clearly, it's more a priority to have a useful cudgel than to actually, oh, act on principle.
Quote from: Clem1029 on February 25, 2011, 09:19:48 PM
Quote from: JeffreyS on February 25, 2011, 09:14:15 PM
I think we all agree we need to make cuts. Some of us think the savings should come from cuts to the Mideast destroy, rebuild, kill brown people sacrifice our soldiers project. While some want to cut investing in America and Americans. Just different philosophies that's all.
Meh...the only problem with that theory is that there were two, full, unadulterated years to make that happen. Not only did it not happen, it wasn't even on the radar as as serious priority. Clearly, it's more a priority to have a useful cudgel than to actually, oh, act on principle.
Not gonna totally disagree with you here.
Quote from: stephendare on February 25, 2011, 09:20:44 PM
Quote from: JeffreyS on February 25, 2011, 09:14:15 PM
I think we all agree we need to make cuts. Some of us think the savings should come from cuts to the Mideast destroy, rebuild, kill brown people sacrifice our soldiers project. While some want to cut investing in America and Americans. Just different philosophies that's all.
That and a little aggressive punitive damages for our criminals on wall street, a roll back of national highway expansions in favor of rail, and a responsible taxation policy.
Gonna totally agree with you here.
Quote from: stephendare on February 25, 2011, 09:23:32 PM
Quote from: Clem1029 on February 25, 2011, 09:19:48 PM
Quote from: JeffreyS on February 25, 2011, 09:14:15 PM
I think we all agree we need to make cuts. Some of us think the savings should come from cuts to the Mideast destroy, rebuild, kill brown people sacrifice our soldiers project. While some want to cut investing in America and Americans. Just different philosophies that's all.
Meh...the only problem with that theory is that there were two, full, unadulterated years to make that happen. Not only did it not happen, it wasn't even on the radar as as serious priority. Clearly, it's more a priority to have a useful cudgel than to actually, oh, act on principle.
except for what actually happened, I guess:
http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-announces-end-of-iraq-war-turns-it-into-speech-on-the-economy-2010-8
Quote
Obama Announces End Of Iraq War -- Turns It Into Speech On The Economy
Joe Weisenthal | Aug. 31, 2010, 9:30 PM
Wait...so let's see if I have this straight...
He gave a speech...about the "end" of the Iraq war....at some indefinite point in the future...completely ignoring Afghanistan...and said speech was given 1.5 years since he took office with a filibuster-proof majority in Congress...and shortly before a devastating mid-term defeat? Do I have that right?
I'm stunned.
Anyone have a real argument to make?
The leaders of our country really could care less about our survival. If so not one of the men on wall street would have a job. They'd have all been fired and replaced..the people who cause this mess are making millions and millions playing the guessing game of wether we are going to live or die..our jails would be filled to the brime with this ilk of a people that gamble our futures...we poor are tired of the abuse and i'm tire of so many just kissing thier ass because they have everyone afraid....corporate abuses and all of these hedge funds and that fund...when are we going to get pissed off and say we've had enough..instead all i hear on here and many other sites is...well...they deserve to do what they are doing...bull shit...they brought this country to its knees and should pay for it...but never will....gee...just like here in jacksonville.
Good morning GG... welcome to another day... in HELL... Bwahahahahaha :o ::) :D