7 Months After Stimulus 49 of 50 States Have Lost Jobs

You can't argue with jobs created (a positive number). Doesn't seem to be the goal.

$787B could keep 787B people employed at $1 per year. Or it could keep 1 person employed at $787B per year. Or something in between, like keeping the existing bankers employed at really high paychecks and bonuses.

You might be able to argue that Obama saved or created some jobs if he predicted "$787B in spending and unemployment will be 8% by the end of the year" and unemployment actually turned out to be 8%.

Quite the opposite is true. He predicted the 8% figure, but we're at ~10%. Either he lied or his plan failed. Pick one.


And like I've always posted - if the money actually went to things that were designed to stimulate the economy (instead of pork barrel spending), I might consider that $787B in stimulus just wasn't enough.

It is very unfortunate that the partisans spent their wad all at once at the beginning with the blatant intent of delivering cash to only their likely voters well down the line (2 years) during the next big election cycle. Unfortunate because real people on main street are suffering for it (lack of job, foreclosures).

 

True, but it only takes a few bad apples at the top to make a bad decision or gamble to cause a lot of financial strife.

I think the bank and bankers are a convenient target for people who don't want to take any accountability for living WAY beyond their means.

 

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5i-95E_TCyqYX0CBZ5xQAV_V3VWyQD9BG76902

Romer: Impact of stimulus will level off
By JIM KUHNHENN (AP) – 8 hours ago

WASHINGTON — A top White House economist says spending from the $787 billion economic stimulus has already had its biggest impact on economic growth and will likely not contribute to significant expansion next year.

Christina Romer, the chair of President Barack Obama's Council of Economic Advisers, said Thursday that the $194 billion already spent gave a jolt to the economy that contributed to growth in the second and third quarters of the year. She told a congressional panel that by the middle of next year, the impact of the stimulus will level off. Romer said spending so far has saved or created 600,000 to 1.5 million jobs but warned that unemployment will remain high, above 9.5 percent, through the end of 2010.

 

A lot of those jobs created probably shouldn't have existed in the first place.

 

$787B / 1.5M = $524,666.67 cost per job.

How stupid are we taxpayers?

$787B / 600000 = $1,311,666.67 cost per job.

These are the same guys that are saying they can deliver efficient health care.

 

We know that about 10% of those "jobs" are temporary workers for the 2010 census.

 

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28586.html

Dems seek cover to boost debt limit

The Senate must soon increase the national debt limit to above $13 trillion — and Democrats are looking for political cover.

Knowing they will face unyielding GOP attacks for voting to increase the eye-popping debt, Democrats are considering attaching a debt increase provision to a must-pass bill, possibly the Defense Department spending bill, according to Democratic and Republican sources.

Adding it to the defense bill would allow Democrats to argue that they voted for the measure to help troops in harm’s way — and downplay that their vote also expanded the limit for how much money the country can borrow.

The strategy has not yet been finalized, aides and senators said. The House already approved a debt limit increase of $925 billion — above the $12.1 trillion ceiling Congress approved as part of the economic stimulus package last February — but Democrats may seek to increase the limit further so they don’t have to revisit the politically treacherous issue until after the 2010 midterm elections.

As of Tuesday, the debt stood at $11.95 trillion, staring at senators amid a roiling health care debate in which critics have seized on the potential costs of the overhaul. Unlike those of the House, the Senate’s rules do not allow it to automatically increase the debt with its adoption of the annual budget resolution. That puts senators in a tough position politically. And if the Senate balks at the increase, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has warned that the slow economic recovery could collapse, as investors around the world would sharply lose confidence in America’s abilities to meet its credit obligations.

“This president inherited, in some ways, an economic fiasco,” said conservative Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana. “It’s not going to be a pleasant vote, but it may be necessary until we can get back on track.”

Indeed, Democrats are quick to point out that President George W. Bush left President Barack Obama with a $10.6 trillion debt — and that the debt limit was increased seven times in the Republican’s eight years in the White House. But now Democrats are in charge of Congress and the White House; and the Treasury Department reported last week that the annual deficit for the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30 stood at a record $1.4 trillion, with that number likely to balloon under Obama’s policies.

With the debt limit about to be eclipsed, Republicans are eager to force Democrats to find the votes to increase it among themselves, putting the majority party in a lose-lose situation and searching for a way to minimize public backlash.

“Regardless of the political treachery, I’m more worried about the economic treachery and the monetary aspects of it with devaluing the dollar,” said Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.).

Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) and the committee’s ranking member, Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), both told POLITICO that appropriators may add the language to must-pass spending legislation.

Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.), whose committee is in charge of the debt increase, said “oh yeah, it’s a possibility” of adding the debt-ceiling increase to the spending legislation.

“I care less how it’s done so long as it is done,” Baucus said.

And Conrad said he wants any debt increase to be coupled with language that would create a “comprehensive” process to force Congress to begin making tough choices to cut the debt — something akin to legislation he and Gregg proposed that would establish a commission to study ways to cut the deficit, whose recommendations would be fast-tracked through Congress.

Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana, a centrist Democrat, said he wouldn’t support an increase in the debt limit “unless there’s some mechanism to start getting the deficit under control.”

Bayh and nine other Democrats sent a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) last week that called on Congress to approve a “special process” to control the deficit — warning that adding trillions more dollars to the country’s credit card could force a sharp rise in interest rates and cause the price of goods and services to decline while limiting the country’s ability to act on a range of pressing issues.

But if that language is attached to a stand-alone bill to increase the debt limit, the House would be forced to vote on the amended version — a vote that House Democratic leaders are eager to avoid. Folding a method to control the deficit — with an increase in the debt limit — into a much larger bill seems to be a more politically palatable solution, several aides said.

“Sen. Reid agrees about the importance of dealing with our long-term fiscal challenges and has been talking with Sen. Conrad, the administration and others in the Democratic leadership about the best way to proceed,” said Jim Manley, senior communications adviser to Reid. “Those discussions are ongoing, and the administration is evaluating what they may want to recommend.”

Republicans are keenly aware that Democrats may try legislative maneuvering to avoid political fallout, with one senior GOP aide saying the defense appropriations route was under “active consideration.”

Three Republicans — Reps. Jerry Lewis and Buck McKeon of California and Rep. Bill Young of Florida — sent a letter to House Appropriations Committee Chairman Dave Obey (D-Wis.) and Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) Wednesday asking Democrats to keep the defense bill clean of extraneous items, including the D.C. Voting Rights Act and an increase in the national debt limit.

A spokesman for Obey, Ellis Brachman, said he “couldn’t speculate on what will be in the final defense appropriations package,” which is awaiting action by a House-Senate conference committee.

Rob Blumenthal, a spokesman for Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii), declined to comment.

Since conference reports cannot be amended, the GOP wouldn’t be able to offer amendments to a debt ceiling increase if it’s added to the defense bill.

And GOP Senate leaders — who expect their 40 members to unite against the debt limit increase and force Democrats to find the necessary 60 votes on their own — are eager to have a protracted amendment process on the floor.

“My guess is that we will try to offer some amendments to [the increase] because I think it’ll be a good opportunity for us to have a debate on spending and borrowing, and that’s obviously a debate that we want to engage in,” said Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), No. 4 in the GOP leadership.

Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), the Senate’s biggest swing vote, said she was uncertain how she’d vote on a debt limit increase.

“You absolutely have to make government run,” she said, “but I have to look at it.”

 

No idea what you mean by that. You claim he didn't create a single job. I showed some evidence he did. Now you say I can't argue with that.

No, those aren't the only two possibilities. Seriously, that's some bad logic right there.

Another possibility is that the predictions were simply too optimistic, and that unemployment would have been even higher than 10% w/o the stimulus.

Now, personally, I'd guess he "lied". Not about the effects of the stimulus package, but about the projected unemployment rate. I'd guess he thought it was probable that unemployment would reach 10% or more (with the stimulus, and even higher w/o the stimulus), but that he intentionally low-balled the estimates so as to avoid being accused of "talking down" the economy. But that's just my guess.

barfo

 

1M net jobs is a positive number.

Those are not the only two possibilities. A third is they're incompetent top to bottom in the west wing.

 

Agreed, but I don't see your point.

Yes, that too is a possibility. Now you have successfully disproven your own assertion. Congratulations.

barfo

 

I made no assertion, I gave you two choices and told you to pick one, and you did.

My point is there aren't 1M net jobs. There are negative millions of net jobs.

Where does the buck stop after $787B has been spent?

 

No, you asserted that it was one of two possibilities. We've both since shown that there were more than two possibilities.

That's a point that no one disagrees with. In other news, the earth is the third planet from the sun.

In China?

barfo

 

How about with the guys who forced through the spending bill based upon promises not kept?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...sees-worst-poll-rating-drop-in-50-years.html#

Barack Obama sees worst poll rating drop in 50 years
The decline in Barack Obama's popularity since July has been the steepest of any president at the same stage of his first term for more than 50 years.

Gallup recorded an average daily approval rating of 53 per cent for Mr Obama for the third quarter of the year, a sharp drop from the 62 per cent he recorded from April.

His current approval rating – hovering just above the level that would make re-election an uphill struggle – is close to the bottom for newly-elected president. Mr Obama entered the White House with a soaring 78 per cent approval rating.

The bad polling news came as Mr Obama returned to the campaign trail to prevent his Democratic party losing two governorships next month in states in which he defeated Senator John McCain in last November's election.

Jeffrey Jones of Gallup explained: "The dominant political focus for Obama in the third quarter was the push for health care reform, including his nationally televised address to Congress in early September.

"Obama hoped that Congress would vote on health care legislation before its August recess, but that goal was missed, and some members of Congress faced angry constituents at town hall meetings to discuss health care reform. Meanwhile, unemployment continued to climb near 10 per cent."

Governor Jon Corzine of New Jersey is in severe danger of defeat while Democrats are fast losing hope that Creigh Deeds can beat his Republican opponent in Virginia. Twin Democratic losses would be a major blow to Mr Obama's prestige.

Campaigning for Mr Corzine in Hackensack on Wednesday night, Mr Obama delivered a plea that almost seemed as much for himself as the local candidate: "I'm here today to urge you to cast aside the cynics and the sceptics, and prove to all Americans that leaders who do what's right and who do what's hard will be rewarded and not rejected."

Mr Corzine, a former Goldman Sachs executive and multi-millionaire, is currently running even in New Jersey, which is normally comfortably Democratic, while Mr Deeds is trailing badly in Virginia, a swing state that was key to Mr Obama's 2008 victory.

Mr Obama is also facing widespread criticism for his drawn-out decision-making process over what to do next in Afghanistan.

Republicans sense Mr Obama is in a vulnerable position and this week saw the return to the public stage of his perhaps most vehement opponent – Vice-President Dick Cheney.

In a blistering speech on Wednesday night, he accused Mr Obama of failing to give Americans troops on the ground a clear mission or defined goals and of being seemingly "afraid to make a decision" about Afghanistan "The White House must stop dithering while America's armed forces are in danger," Cheney said at the Center for Security Policy in Washington.

"Make no mistake, signals of indecision out of Washington hurt our allies and embolden our adversaries."

He hit out at Obama aides who suggested that the Bush administration had failed to weigh up conditions in Afghanistan properly before committing troops.

"Now they seem to be pulling back and blaming others for their failure to implement the strategy they embraced. It's time for President Obama to do what it takes to win a war he has repeatedly and rightly called a war of necessity."