• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

LA Times: Obama stimulus spending: $246,436 per new job

Grim17

Battle Ready
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 29, 2009
Messages
34,478
Reaction score
17,282
Location
Southwestern U.S.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Obama stimulus spending: $246,436 per new job
Andrew Malcolm
December 8, 2009

According to its own shovel-ready recovery numbers, the nearly 11-month-old Democratic administration claims to have created 640,329 good ol' American jobs so far this year by spending $157.8 billion of that stimulus money.

Now, that works out to a cost of $246,436 per job created, according to figures dug up by the eagle-eyed James Pethokoukis over at Reuters.

Total compensation earned by the average American payroll employee during the month of October was $59,867 on an annualized basis, Pethokoukis reports. That's only 24% of the nearly quarter-million dollars it costs the federal government to create that spot.

Had Obama and Biden simply handed out to unemployed individuals $60,000 as a year's salary, they could have paid for 2.6 million jobs -- four times as many jobs that have been created. That's the kind of disastrous return on investment that could cost a banker his bonus.

Link

This colossal waste of taxpayer money is a classic example of the inefficiency of the federal government, and the number 1 reason why we need to keep the government out of the health care industry.

Do you people realize, that if the Obama administration would have taken that $157 billion, split it up, and simply given it to the 3 million people who have lost their jobs since Obama took office, that would have given each of them $52,600 a piece... That's an entire years wages.

.
 
This colossal waste of taxpayer money is a classic example of the inefficiency of the federal government, and the number 1 reason why we need to keep the government out of the health care industry.

Do you people realize, that if the Obama administration would have taken that $157 billion, split it up, and simply given it to the 3 million people who have lost their jobs since Obama took office, that would have given each of them $52,600 a piece... That's an entire years wages.

.

It's about time you stopped reading that whacky rag. Not all of the money has been received yet.
 
It's about time you stopped reading that whacky rag. Not all of the money has been received yet.


So now the LA times is a "whacky rag"? Why, because it took time away from its usual adoration of BHO?

Not all of the money is out there, why not? Waiting for 12% unemployment? or just the truth that was foretold when this joke of a bill was passed which was, it wasn't a stimulus at all, but a giant pork package, meant to get demo's re elected in 2010, and 2012.


j-mac
 
Let's not forget that the jobs that are being "created" are temporary, like construction jobs. If it was careers, it wouldn't be so bad, but these are jobs that sometimes don't even last 2 years. Also, some of these jobs aren't even producing any wealth, like construction that isn't even necessary.
 
Let's not forget that the jobs that are being "created" are temporary, like construction jobs. If it was careers, it wouldn't be so bad, but these are jobs that sometimes don't even last 2 years. Also, some of these jobs aren't even producing any wealth, like construction that isn't even necessary.


Some, aren't even lasting a week.


j-mac
 
Government healthcare is expected to have a -3% impact on GDP, too.

For reference, the drop we just took this past year was -3%. Oh, goody, maybe we can hit 20% unemployment and 2000 in the Dow.
 
So now the LA times is a "whacky rag"? Why, because it took time away from its usual adoration of BHO?
LOL, why? because they print crap like this. I've been panning the LA Times for a while.

Not all of the money is out there, why not? Waiting for 12% unemployment? or just the truth that was foretold when this joke of a bill was passed which was, it wasn't a stimulus at all, but a giant pork package, meant to get demo's re elected in 2010, and 2012.
No, because it isn't all out there yet. News flash: billions is a lot.

If someone was honest, they figure using the amount received. $37 billion, last I heard. Then they'd also realize that the money is doing something else, too. Not just making jobs.

Andrew Malcolm is the same "pundit" that complained about the national Christmas tree being turned on. He compared the approval rating of a sitting president to the approval rating of an author. He's been known to round poll numbers UP to make them sound worse.

Pathetic.
 
No, because it isn't all out there yet. News flash: billions is a lot.

True, it does take a long time to print a trillion dollars. Probably costs a lot, too.
 
True, it does take a long time to print a trillion dollars. Probably costs a lot, too.

Hmmmm....
I wonder how much they had to borrow to print that money?.....:shock:
 
LOL, why? because they print crap like this. I've been panning the LA Times for a while.


Wow, you libs are thin skinned.



No, because it isn't all out there yet. News flash: billions is a lot.


That has to be the most inane answer posted on these boards to date....Congrats!


j-mac
 
Wow, you libs are thin skinned.

That has to be the most inane answer posted on these boards to date....Congrats!

j-mac

You're hilarious. "inane" means pointless. Now ask yourself what your post had to do with the LA Times article, spending, or job creation, or if it refuted or even addressed anything in my post. J-mac, you're quite an entertainer.
 
Last edited:
True or false: $1 of infrastructure spending via a federal fiscal stimulus creates more than $1.6 in GDP.

I will also ask you to explain your answer:2wave:
 
True or false: $1 of infrastructure spending via a federal fiscal stimulus creates more than $1.6 in GDP.

I will also ask you to explain your answer:2wave:

$1 of consumer spending creates how much in GDP?

$1 of spending will produce the greater good when spent by a consumer or by government?
 
1 to 1.6, a pretty ratio

LOL!

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Dig]Big Dig - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
 
This colossal waste of taxpayer money is a classic example of the inefficiency of the federal government, and the number 1 reason why we need to keep the government out of the health care industry.

Do you people realize, that if the Obama administration would have taken that $157 billion, split it up, and simply given it to the 3 million people who have lost their jobs since Obama took office, that would have given each of them $52,600 a piece... That's an entire years wages.

.

Dividing the stimulus money spent so far by the estimated number of jobs saved or created" is highly misleading because that calculation ignores the value of the work produced, only includes jobs produced to date from funds that will fuel work for months or years, and excludes indirect employment resulting from the stimulus.

Wash. Examiner forwards misleading cost-per-job stimulus math | Media Matters for America
 
Dividing the stimulus money spent so far by the estimated number of jobs saved or created" is highly misleading because that calculation ignores the value of the work produced, only includes jobs produced to date from funds that will fuel work for months or years, and excludes indirect employment resulting from the stimulus.

Wash. Examiner forwards misleading cost-per-job stimulus math | Media Matters for America

We don't talk about indirect employment when we talk about the market creating jobs, so why should we do it with government?

And the money spent probably outvalues the work done.
 
True or false: $1 of infrastructure spending via a federal fiscal stimulus creates more than $1.6 in GDP.

I will also ask you to explain your answer:2wave:

You could never prove such a thing, ever.
 
Government healthcare is expected to have a -3% impact on GDP, too.

For reference, the drop we just took this past year was -3%. Oh, goody, maybe we can hit 20% unemployment and 2000 in the Dow.
We need to get that Dow below when Reagan took over, so we can relive those pre-Reagan good times.
 
Government can't create wealth. Just can't say that enough.
 
Let's not forget that the jobs that are being "created" are temporary, like construction jobs. If it was careers, it wouldn't be so bad, but these are jobs that sometimes don't even last 2 years. Also, some of these jobs aren't even producing any wealth, like construction that isn't even necessary.

It's a stimulus. It will help create other jobs, which create other jobs, and so on, until there are permanent ones.
 
the stimulus failed

ask both those invited and those excluded from the ad-lib administration's jobs summit
 
It's a stimulus. It will help create other jobs, which create other jobs, and so on, until there are permanent ones.

Newsflash: the government can't do that...:rofl
 
It's a stimulus. It will help create other jobs, which create other jobs, and so on, until there are permanent ones.

So wouldn't letting consumers spend, since they spend money more efficiently, lead to even more jobs than government spending?
 
Back
Top Bottom