Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
More broadly, job cuts began shrinking just as the stimulus was going into effect last year, and the stock market began rising shortly after it passed. The stimulus was by no means the only reason, but it appears to have been a significant one.
Based on its economic models, the Congressional Budget Office recently estimated that between 1.4 million and 3.4 million workers who have jobs would be unemployed if the stimulus hadn’t been enacted. Three of the best-known private economic research firms — IHS Global Insight, Macroeconomic Advisers and Moody’s Economy.com — have come up with similar estimates. The average estimated effect on employment is about 2.5 million jobs.
Nariman Behravesh, IHS Global Insight’s chief economist, has a nice way of summarizing what the bill did (and, to some extent, didn’t) do: “It prevented things from getting much worse than they otherwise would have been. I think everyone would have to acknowledge that’s a good thing.”
The stimulus package worked from the standpoint that it prevented a deplorable situation from evolving into a catastrophic mess.
Too much of the stimulus money was used by the states to pay down debt and not for the intended purpose of stimulating jobs. Paying down debt is a good thing, but when the intended result was to provide for job growth than its questionable.
We were promised before the stimulus package passed that millions of jobs would be created-----nah I dont so. If the goal was to put Americans back to work and restore confidence, why wasnt a package created to develop massive infrastructure repair. That repair would have been to repair thousands of decaying bridges, resurfacing and expanding the federal highway system, and repairing thousands of blighted areas.
Somehow we kept the patient from entering intensive care, but yet the patient is still ill and shows symptoms of distress.
More broadly, job cuts began shrinking just as the stimulus was going into effect last year, and the stock market began rising shortly after it passed. The stimulus was by no means the only reason, but it appears to have been a significant one.
Based on its economic models, the Congressional Budget Office recently estimated that between 1.4 million and 3.4 million workers who have jobs would be unemployed if the stimulus hadn’t been enacted. Three of the best-known private economic research firms — IHS Global Insight, Macroeconomic Advisers and Moody’s Economy.com — have come up with similar estimates. The average estimated effect on employment is about 2.5 million jobs.
Nariman Behravesh, IHS Global Insight’s chief economist, has a nice way of summarizing what the bill did (and, to some extent, didn’t) do: “It prevented things from getting much worse than they otherwise would have been. I think everyone would have to acknowledge that’s a good thing.”
Of course the stimulus worked. We have only lost, what, 3 million jobs since it was passed?
Keep in mind, we need to create 130,000-150,000 jobs/month just to maintain the UE rate at the same level. That's almost 2.5 million jobs just to maintain the UE rate. In addition, a couple MILLION people have LEFT to labor pool altogether including nearly 1 million in just the last two months.
Our Economy is close to being a basket case and the massive tax and regulatory hikes being imposed by Comrade Obama's regime will only make things MUCH worse. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a moron.
Of course the stimulus worked. We have only lost, what, 3 million jobs since it was passed?
Keep in mind, we need to create 130,000-150,000 jobs/month just to maintain the UE rate at the same level. That's almost 2.5 million jobs just to maintain the UE rate. In addition, a couple MILLION people have LEFT to labor pool altogether including nearly 1 million in just the last two months.
Our Economy is close to being a basket case and the massive tax and regulatory hikes being imposed by Comrade Obama's regime will only make things MUCH worse. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a moron.
Ah.............. but unfortunately there are plenty of morons out there who believe that
1. "stimulus" actually stimulates an economy. See the failures of the Great Depression, 1990s Japan and the current Obama disaster.
2. tax increases HELP an economy. Gee......... it creates more government revenue, right? And that is a good thing!
3. Food stamps and unemployment stimulate the economy long term. Just ask Nancy Pelosi. That is why the richest parts of the country are the areas with the highest unemployment rates and food stamp use.
4. the government is the greatest source of jobs and prosperity in the US.
You just can't make up things this crazy, yet the libs really believe in them.
That's not true at all. They did all of the things they're complaining about. They spent their asses off. At least with the Democrats, they're spending to try to spur economic development. It may be "socialism" in the Glenn Beck 2010 definition of socialism (that's never before been used in the 150 year history of socialism), but it's better than crony capitalism.
More broadly, job cuts began shrinking just as the stimulus was going into effect last year, and the stock market began rising shortly after it passed. The stimulus was by no means the only reason, but it appears to have been a significant one.
Based on its economic models, the Congressional Budget Office recently estimated that between 1.4 million and 3.4 million workers who have jobs would be unemployed if the stimulus hadn’t been enacted. Three of the best-known private economic research firms — IHS Global Insight, Macroeconomic Advisers and Moody’s Economy.com — have come up with similar estimates. The average estimated effect on employment is about 2.5 million jobs.
Nariman Behravesh, IHS Global Insight’s chief economist, has a nice way of summarizing what the bill did (and, to some extent, didn’t) do: “It prevented things from getting much worse than they otherwise would have been. I think everyone would have to acknowledge that’s a good thing.”
Of course, they are going to be happy... we saved THEIR jobs... its nice when CEOs of corruption and fraud get to keep their million dollar paychecks while everyone else loses.... is that the liberal idea of it getting better or are you drunk with Obama kool-aid that you try to spin B.S. around? Its nice when CEOs try to scare you by saying it saved your job... so full of B.S.... you must be the type of person to fall for any scam as long as they mention Obama saving you from credit card debt, mortgages, and crap like that... seriously... be skeptical and maybe you won't be so easily fooled...
If we change the name from "stimulus" to "subsidy" then it worked. State and local governments were subsidized by the Fed to keep the paychecks going. Now that the "subsidies" have run out the job loss talk is hitting the press again.
Time for another "subsidy" ? Just like unemployment....keep extending and renewing the supposedly "free" money for how long ? Pretend that everything is fine and those shoots are popping up all over ?
China had a stimulus. The US had a subsidy. Big difference.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
