Did Obama's economic stimulus help the economy or not?

[MrRIP]

Please bring numbers. Let me help.

Obamas plan was enacted February 17th 2009.

I would like to see job creation numbers chart from March of 09 to march of 2012.

Like a monthly breakdown of jobs lost and created every month since then.

Anyone know where to find this

[lasher]

It depends. If the numbers are bad then it was his plan and he sucks. If the numbers are good it was actually bushes plan and obama gets no credit for it.

[powerman2000]

The left can't demonstrate that it helped so all you'll hear them say is that it saved it from getting even worse.
But not that it has made anything better.

[doobiebro]

Please bring numbers. Let me help.

Obamas plan was enacted February 17th 2009.

I would like to see job creation numbers chart from March of 09 to march of 2012.

Like a monthly breakdown of jobs lost and created every month since then.

Anyone know where to find this

No idea brah

But whether jobs were created or lost, how would you know if the stimulus was the reason, or if was "good" for the economy?

[MrRIP]

From wiki.

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, later revised to $831 billion between 2009 and 2019.[citation needed] 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).

The rationale for ARRA was from Keynesian macroeconomic theory which argues that, during recessions, the government should offset the decrease in private spending with an increase in public spending in order to save jobs and stop further economic deterioration.

[MrRIP]

Brb the draft.

[powerman2000]

"Shovel ready" jobs that even Obama admitted weren't so shovel ready as he thought they would be.

[npaoun]

Yeah, it obviously improves unemployment by directly hiring. No one can really argue against this. At least a few people were hired.

You can easily argue that it wasn't worth the cost however.

[powerman2000]

Yeah, it obviously improves unemployment by directly hiring. No one can really argue against this. At least a few people were hired.

You can easily argue that it wasn't worth the cost however.

Yes, people did get jobs out of it, but analysis showed the cost to create these jobs was over $250K PER JOB.

[FuarkJohnson]

lol troll thread

[JB05]

Yep, the $9 billion we gave to California for high-speed rail projects was a great investment. I hear they'll be ready to break ground any decade now - as soon as all the lawyers, bureaucrats, minority business owners and environmentalists can hammer out all their differences in court...

[TheFuzz1290]

Job "creation" is relative. The way unemployment is calculated now, it does not take into consideration people who are underemployed or people who just flat out gave up trying to find work. So taking into consideration real unemployment numbers, jobs have actually decreased.

I don't have the link in front of me, but there has been extensive research showing flat out lies by the administration about how many jobs the stimulus "saved or created." There were items on there like a pair of work boots bought for a county government saved or created 2 jobs, I mean really?

Also, spending almost $1,000,000,000 that we don't have doesn't help the economy as it lowers our investment value to other countries. In the past we've been a nation of production, but now we're a nation of consumption and we've basically been trading our bonds on our reputation, not for what we create. Not to mention, we borrowed a majority of the money from China, who owns a good chunk of our debt. Adding to that debt lowers America's "value."

(Now its not just this administration, its been the last several.)

[PSToolman]

Job "creation" is relative. The way unemployment is calculated now, it does not take into consideration people who are underemployed or people who just flat out gave up trying to find work. So taking into consideration real unemployment numbers, jobs have actually decreased.

I don't have the link in front of me, but there has been extensive research showing flat out lies by the administration about how many jobs the stimulus "saved or created." There were items on there like a pair of work boots bought for a county government saved or created 2 jobs, I mean really?

Also, spending almost $1,000,000,000 that we don't have doesn't help the economy as it lowers our investment value to other countries. In the past we've been a nation of production, but now we're a nation of consumption and we've basically been trading our bonds on our reputation, not for what we create. Not to mention, we borrowed a majority of the money from China, who owns a good chunk of our debt. Adding to that debt lowers America's "value."

(Now its not just this administration, its been the last several.)

Unemployment and job creation are two different statistics because of population growth and in the case of this recession the number of people who simply ran out of unemployment benefits.

Four years ago, we were losing jobs. A substantial number of jobs every month. Today we have been gaining jobs every month for the last three years. New unemployment claims are also down. This is good news and anyone who doesn't think so simply wants to see Obama fail.

Have we regained all the jobs that were lost or reduced unemployment sufficiently? No, but at least we are moving in the right direction. I have no doubt in my mind that were we to adopt the policies put forth by the GOP and their front-runner, that will be reversed. In fact, that is what they promise.

[ViolentZ]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-0...-cbo-says.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/bu...ulus.html?_r=1
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/20...s_graphic.html

[npaoun]

Yes, people did get jobs out of it, but analysis showed the cost to create these jobs was over $250K PER JOB.

Right, it is an absurd cost.

The list of economists that think it did nothing is few. The list of economists that do not think the cost of the program was justified is large.

I would be suprised if even 1 of those jobs produced $250k of value.

[MrRIP]

lol troll thread

DJM please. Im waiting for them to bring numbers.... Dont worry Ill wait

[MrRIP]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-0...-cbo-says.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/bu...ulus.html?_r=1
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/20...s_graphic.html

Violentz brings gold.

[MrRIP]

Right, it is an absurd cost.

The list of economists that think it did nothing is few. The list of economists that do not think the cost of the program was justified is large.

I would be suprised if even 1 of those jobs produced $250k of value.

not sure if srs

[MrRIP]

Job "creation" is relative. The way unemployment is calculated now, it does not take into consideration people who are underemployed or people who just flat out gave up trying to find work. So taking into consideration real unemployment numbers, jobs have actually decreased.

I don't have the link in front of me, but there has been extensive research showing flat out lies by the administration about how many jobs the stimulus "saved or created." There were items on there like a pair of work boots bought for a county government saved or created 2 jobs, I mean really?

Also, spending almost $1,000,000,000 that we don't have doesn't help the economy as it lowers our investment value to other countries. In the past we've been a nation of production, but now we're a nation of consumption and we've basically been trading our bonds on our reputation, not for what we create. Not to mention, we borrowed a majority of the money from China, who owns a good chunk of our debt. Adding to that debt lowers America's "value."

(Now its not just this administration, its been the last several.)

Unemployment is the state of an individual looking for a paying job but not having one.
Unemployment does not include full-time students, the retired, children, or those not actively looking for a paying job.

Thats the definition by economic standards and it has been in use for decades. You dont know much about economics do you?

[ViolentZ]

Dat dere so much data bro


http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost

Unemployment
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
7.8 8.3 8.7 8.9 9.4 9.5 9.5 9.6 9.8 10.0 9.9 9.9 2009
9.7 9.8 9.8 9.9 9.6 9.4 9.5 9.6 9.5 9.5 9.8 9.4 2010
9.1 9.0 8.9 9.0 9.0 9.1 9.1 9.1 9.0 8.9 8.7 8.5 2011


and numbers from 2012
8.3 8.3 8.2

[PSToolman]

Yes, people did get jobs out of it, but analysis showed the cost to create these jobs was over $250K PER JOB.

Right, it is an absurd cost.

The list of economists that think it did nothing is few. The list of economists that do not think the cost of the program was justified is large.

I would be suprised if even 1 of those jobs produced $250k of value.

I'd like to see the figures on that. Does the $250K include the cost of machines and materials? How long did each job last? Employing a crane operator plus the cost of leasing a crane for three years would easily exceed $250K.

To debunk your last assumption, the four projects to upgrade four freeway interchanges in our region cost 74 million, not all of it Federal stimulus money. I'm sure these projects gave jobs to more than 18 people, and will bring in far more than 74 million in revenue to the private businesses in the area and generating tax revenue for the local governments. This real growth. Growth with a purpose. (Not your one man growth like Romney is "admired" for, or that Ayn Rand espouses.)

That is why it is called a "stimulus". You spend a little money here and there to generate business around the project. When done right, you bring in more than you spend. It's hard to think of many better ways to invest public money.

[KRANE]

Please bring numbers. Let me help.

Obamas plan was enacted February 17th 2009.

I would like to see job creation numbers chart from March of 09 to march of 2012.

Like a monthly breakdown of jobs lost and created every month since then.

Anyone know where to find this

Of course it did. Just not exactly in the way he may have planned. It made a lot of people (the banks) very rich.

[trailwarrior]

How the Great Recession Was Brought to an End
Alan S. Blinder - Professor of Economics, Princeton University
Mark Zandi - Chief Economist, Moody’s Analytics
July 27, 2010

A stunning range of initiatives was undertaken by the Federal Reserve, the Bush and Obama administrations, and Congress (see Table 1). While the effectiveness of any individual element certainly can be debated, there is little doubt that in total, the policy response was highly effective. If policymakers had not reacted as aggressively or as quickly as they did...the costs to U.S. taxpayers would have been vastly greater.

http://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/do...-Recession.pdf

[ViolentZ]

mirin jobra ?



wazam

[IronRooster2]

we borrowed a majority of the money from China, who owns a good chunk of our debt.

US: 53%
China: 8%

We don't "borrow" it so much as it's profit forcibly extracted from us by those who own the world.

[pachovia]

mirin jobra ?



wazam

Nothing to be proud of, the unemployment rate hasn't remained this high for this long since the 1930's. You have to look at the score board going from 10% unemployment to 8.2% sucks balls. The bottom graph is way off, the prediction failed, we are not at 6% unemployment.

[PSToolman]

Nothing to be proud of, the unemployment rate hasn't remained this high for this long since the 1930's. You have to look at the score board going from 10% unemployment to 8.2% sucks balls. The bottom graph is way off, the prediction failed, we are not at 6% unemployment.

But why is this, I wonder? Businesses are not hiring, though most of the big ones are posting record profits. Without jobs, we can't consume, without consumption, businesses won't add employees. If private businesses won't give people jobs, what choices do we have left? Not everyone is going to have the knowledge, skills, or experience to start their own business. Many of those still unemployed will probably have to move to where the jobs are if they can find such a place, but how can you move if you can't sell your home.

It's a ****ed up situation, and sadly only those with the money can turn it around, unless we get a government that serves the people and not the oligarchs.

[ViolentZ]

Projected Effects of ARRA in 2012
The effects of ARRA on output peaked in the first half of 2010 and have since diminished, CBO estimates. The effects on employment are estimated to lag slightly behind the effects on output; CBO estimates that the employment effects began to wane at the end of 2010 and continued to do so throughout 2011.

In total, CBO estimates that the legislation will increase budget deficits by about $831 billion over the 2009–2019 period. By CBO’s estimate, close to half of that impact occurred in fiscal year 2010, and more than 90 percent of ARRA’s budgetary impact was
realized by the end of December 2011.

Still, CBO estimates that, compared with what would have occurred otherwise, in 2012 ARRA will:

Raise real GDP by between 0.1 percent and 0.8 percent, and
Increase the number of FTE jobs by between 0.2 million and 1.3 million.
This report was prepared by Felix Reichling of CBO’s Macroeconomic Analysis Division.

mirin jobra ?

But why is this, I wonder?

What Factors Have Caused High Unemployment?
Many factors are responsible for the rise in unemployment in general and in long-term unemployment:

- Weak demand for goods and services, as a result of the recession and its aftermath, which results in weak demand for workers;
- Mismatches between would-be employers’ needs and the skills or location of the unemployed;
- Incentives for people to stay in the labor force and continue searching for work that result from extensions of unemployment insurance benefits; and
- The erosion of unemployed workers’ skills and the belief of some employers that people who have been unemployed for a long time would be low-quality workers (a phenomenon sometimes called stigma).
- Slack demand for goods and services (that is, slack aggregate demand) is the primary reason for the persistently high levels of unemployment and long-term unemployment observed today, in CBO’s judgment. However, when aggregate demand ultimately picks up, as it eventually will, so-called structural factors—specifically, employer-employee mismatches, the erosion of skills, and stigma—may continue to keep unemployment and long-term unemployment higher than normal.

What Policies Would Increase Demand for Workers?
In previous work, CBO examined the possible effects of a number of policies designed to increase economic growth and employment in 2012 and 2013. Changes in tax or spending policy that would produce the largest increases in employment per dollar of budgetary cost include:

Reducing the marginal cost to businesses of adding employees; and
Targeting people most likely to spend the additional income (generally, people with lower income).
Policies primarily affecting businesses’ cash flow would have little impact on their marginal incentives to hire or invest and, therefore, would have only small effects on employment per dollar of budgetary cost.

Despite the near-term economic benefits, such actions would add to the already large projected budget deficits that would exist under current policies, either immediately or over time. Achieving both short-term stimulus and long-term sustainability would require a combination of policies: changes in taxes and spending that would widen the deficit now but reduce it later in the decade.

Lawmakers could also influence employment—and unemployment—during the next few years by changing policies that do not involve, or whose scope extends well beyond, taxation and government spending. Previously, CBO considered some potential changes in regulatory and other policies related to energy and the environment, the financial and health care sectors, and international trade. In CBO’s judgment, the economic effects of changes in those policies probably would be too small or would occur too slowly to significantly alter overall output or employment in the next two years.

What Other Policies Could Reduce Unemployment?
Lawmakers could aim to reduce unemployment by addressing factors other than weak demand for goods and services. For example, policies could:

Improve workers’ skills through training programs (perhaps targeted at specific vocations, geographic areas, or age groups);
Modify the unemployment insurance program to encourage unemployed people to return to work quickly, keep the unemployed connected to the workplace, or forestall job losses; or
Facilitate transitions to work through job-search and housing mobility assistance programs.
Such policies could be implemented using mechanisms ranging from providing funding through block grants to direct federal operation.

[TheFuzz1290]

US: 53%
China: 8%

We don't "borrow" it so much as it's profit forcibly extracted from us by those who own the world.

I should've specified, recent debt, not overall.

[trailwarrior]

Nothing to be proud of, the unemployment rate hasn't remained this high for this long since the 1930's.

...and Republicans weren't given an opportunity to put the country through another of their Great Depressions until now...

Another Republican Great Depression

When Ronald Reagan came into office in 1981, he set about to undo FDR's New Deal. For 26 years now, economic conservatives have run this country, and the result has been the steady deterioration of the middle class, a rise in the wealthy elite, and a massive transfer from infrastructure investment to war expense. The result could easily be Another Republican Great Depression (or, more likely, given the massive debts run up by Reagan and both Bush's, a Republican Weimar-style Hyperinflation).

The idea that turning a nation's economy over to "free market" corporatists is idiotic isn't new. Thomas Jefferson laid it out in an 1816 letter to Samuel Kerchival.

"Those seeking profits," Jefferson wrote, "were they given total freedom, would not be the ones to trust to keep government pure and our rights secure. Indeed, it has always been those seeking wealth who were the source of corruption in government. No other depositories of power have ever yet been found, which did not end in converting to their own profit the earnings of those committed to their charge."

He added: "I am not among those who fear the people. They, and not the rich, are our dependence for continued freedom. ... We must make our election between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude. ... [Otherwise], as the people of England are, our people, like them, must come to labor sixteen hours in the twenty-four, ... and the sixteenth being insufficient to afford us bread, we must live, as they now do, on oatmeal and potatoes; have no time to think, no means of calling the mismanagers to account; but be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains on the necks of our fellow sufferers."

A totally "free" market where corporations reign supreme, just like the oppressive governments of old, Jefferson said could transform America "...until the bulk of the society is reduced to be mere automatons of misery, to have no sensibilities left but for sinning and suffering. Then begins, indeed, the bellum omnium in omnia, which some philosophers observing to be so general in this world, have mistaken it for the natural, instead of the abusive state of man."

To stimulate our economy after the collapse of the Republican Great Depression, FDR also instituted progressive taxation, which gave workers more to spend, thus stimulating demand for more goods and services.

Progressive taxation, too, has a long history: As Jefferson said in a 1785 letter to James Madison, "Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise."

As Jefferson realized, and FDR proved, with no government "interference" by setting the rules of the game of business and fair taxation, there will be no middle class.

And as history around the world proves, when the middle class vanishes, democracy often goes with it.

more...