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.
I couldn't argue with your comments even if I wanted to, but it has little bearing on the CDO's report or this discussion since you would have to argue that the unemployment rate would be higher still than your estimate of 20% absent the number of jobs provided by the stimulus.
It could be argued the unemployment picture was far more severe in 1921 and even the great depression because most families were single wage earner families and when he lost his job all the money was gone.
"CBO estimates that in the fourth quarter of calendar year 2009, ARRA added between 1.0 million and 2.1 million to the number of workers employed in the United States,."
With TONS of exeptions, like!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
"a total of 595,263 full-time equivalant jobs-more than two-thirds of them in education-were created or retained using ARRA funds".
"One factor that could make the report figure too high is that recipients reports may include some employment that would have occured without ARRA"
"In the case of government employees, state or local taxes might have been raised in the absence of ARRA funding"
In 2008 he was ranked by Forbes as the richest person in the world with an estimated net worth of approximately US$62 billion.[77] In 2009, after donating billions of dollars to charity, Buffett was ranked as the second richest man in the United States with a net worth of US$37 billion.[78][79] Only Bill Gates is currently ranked higher than Buffett.
Why would the economic opinion of the world's wealthiest man matter to anyone?
The CBO says there were between 1 million and 2.1 million more jobs during the last three months of 2009 than there would have been without the stimulus law. The White House Council of Economic Advisers pegged that number as between 1.5 and 2 million jobs in a January report.
We save about .5%-1% unemployment for at the cost of 862 billion. Wow that's a bargain
The CBO says there were between 1 million and 2.1 million more jobs during the last three months of 2009 than there would have been without the stimulus law. The White House Council of Economic Advisers pegged that number as between 1.5 and 2 million jobs in a January report.
So we spent billions just to have the unemployment rate go down by 1%?
What a great investment.
I just wish they looked at the numbers from the first one and try something different.
That first one didn't really accomplish what it was supposed to and cost way to much for what was accomplished. And on top of that where is the funding for the continued employment of all those temps hired from the first one ?
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.
