12 Oct 11
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/the-chart-that-shows-just-how-wrong-obamas-stimulus-projections-were/
The Obama administration recently came out with it's original projections on how much the stimulus would help the economy. As most know, the projections were that unemployment would not go over 8% with the stimulus package but it reached over 10%. However, this is not what I would like to discuss. I would like to discuss the fact that his original projections, although wrong, showed that the stimulus would only decrease unemployment by 1 or 2 percentage points. So the question is this, how much tax payer money is worth a few percentage points in regard to unemployment? Of course, this is assuming that a stimulus has such power. I question the fact that it does.
Originally posted by whodeyIf the investment is done correctly, it is certainly worth immediate or near-term provision of enough jobs for the millions of unemployed people who collectively comprise "only 1 or 2 percentage points" of the potential U.S. work force.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/the-chart-that-shows-just-how-wrong-obamas-stimulus-projections-were/
The Obama administration recently came out with it's original projections on how much the stimulus would help the economy. As most know, the projections were that unemployment would not go over 8% with the stimulus package but it reached over 10%. Howeve ...[text shortened]... Of course, this is assuming that a stimulus has such power. I question the fact that it does.
12 Oct 11
Originally posted by wittywonkaThank you, good anonymous sir, for the thumbs down. I appreciate your substantive and enlightening contribution to this thread.
If the investment is done correctly, it is certainly worth immediate or near-term provision of enough jobs for the millions of unemployed people who collectively comprise "only 1 or 2 percentage points" of the potential U.S. work force.
12 Oct 11
1 edit
Originally posted by wittywonkaI still don't buy the fact that unemployment would be up as high as 2% points without Obamacare. However, we will discuss this assuming this is correct.
If the investment is done correctly, it is certainly worth immediate or near-term provision of enough jobs for the millions of unemployed people who collectively comprise "only 1 or 2 percentage points" of the potential U.S. work force.
So essentially close to a trillion dollars of tax payer money is worth spending to make sure a millinon or so have jobs?
If so, why not just split the money between the million or so out of work? If they split a trillion between a million, that comes out to one million per person. Which sounds better? Should we spend tax payer money to create a million millionares or should we spend it to watch unemployment go up 2 more percentage points?
12 Oct 11
Originally posted by whodeyI both hope and doubt those numbers are accurate because if the government is spending one million dollars to create a job then it would be more efficient to just give a million dollars directly to an unemployed person.
I still don't buy the fact that unemployment would be up as high as 2% points without Obamacare. However, we will discuss this assuming this is correct.
So essentially close to a trillion dollars of tax payer money is worth spending to make sure a millinon or so have jobs?
If so, why not just split the money between the million or so out of work? If ...[text shortened]... million millionares or should we spend it to watch unemployment go up 2 more percentage points?
12 Oct 11
Originally posted by quackquackWe all need to cut Obama some slack. He got a lot of support to get elected and he has to pay these people back. Consider Solyndra (the solar company that recently went bankrupt after the government backed $500 million in loans through the stimulus). Did Obama think this was a good investment or not? We can't really know. Perhaps he made an honest mistake. Perhaps he knew it was doomed, but needed to pay back a campaign donor. (He can't just cut people checks, he has to use tricks like this to give money to his supporters).
I both hope and doubt those numbers are accurate because if the government is spending one million dollars to create a job then it would be more efficient to just give a million dollars directly to an unemployed person.
But the point of this is that when the president says things such as "give me $400 billion and I'll rescue the economy", we can't even know if he believes it himself. This is why we should avoid as much as we can letting the government pick winners and losers. This $400 billion (and the previous $787 billion, and Bush's $800 billion) cost politicians not a cent of their own money.