Economists: The stimulus didn't help

[JohnSmith2007 353]

Economists: The stimulus didn't help

By Hibah Yousuf, staff reporterApril 26, 2010: 3:56 AM ET

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The recovery is picking up steam as employers boost payrolls, but economists think the government's stimulus package and jobs bill had little to do with the rebound, according to a survey released Monday.

In latest quarterly survey by the National Association for Business Economics, the index that measures employment showed job growth for the first time in two years -- but a majority of respondents felt the fiscal stimulus had no impact.

NABE conducted the study by polling 68 of its members who work in economic roles at private-sector firms. About 73% of those surveyed said employment at their company is neither higher nor lower as a result of the $787 billion Recovery Act, which the White House's Council of Economic Advisers says is on track to create or save 3.5 million jobs by the end of the year.

That sentiment is shared for the recently passed $17.7 billion jobs bill that calls for tax breaks for businesses that hire and additional infrastructure spending. More than two-thirds of those polled believe the measure won't affect payrolls, while 30% expect it to boost hiring "moderately."

But the economists see conditions improving. More than half of respondents -- 57% -- say industrial demand is rising, while just 6% see it declining. A growing number also said their firms are increasing spending and profit margins are widening.

Nearly a quarter of those surveyed forecast that gross domestic product, the broadest measure of economic activity, will grow more than 3% in 2010, and 70% of NABE's respondents expect it to grow more than 2%.

Still, the survey suggested that tight lending conditions remain a concern. Almost half of those polled said the credit crunch hurts their business.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/04/26/news/economy/NABE_survey/

[Danno 1,228]

Not only didn't it help..... few ever saw all where it went.

I was expecting all these huge projects and programs to get workers going and kick-start the construction industry... which so many others are connected too.

I never saw or heard of one thing.

At least when Bush passed his "homeland security" program we saw Firehouses police stations, medical services being built (most has nothing to do with homeland security).

The only thing Obamas plan has done is create more Government... like we need that.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Economists: Without Stimulus, Unemployment Would Have Hit 10.8%

...according to a new survey of economists in USA Today, the stimulus has done a lot for unemployment, and, in fact, "the government still needs to do more to breathe life into the economy":

Unemployment would have hit 10.8% — higher than December's 10% rate — without Obama's $787 billion stimulus program, according to the economists' median estimate. The difference would translate into another 1.2 million lost jobs

. But almost two-thirds of the economists said the government should do more to spur job growth.

Discussion about the stimulus has tended to focus on little accounting errors, which miss the big picture, or on faulty analyses that fundamentally distort how the package was designed. But economists have consistently found that the stimulus package is working exactly as it should, and that it is simply too small to counteract the economic crisis.

http://wonkroom.thin...stimulus-polls/

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

http://wonkroom.thin...stimulus-polls/

:rofl: :rofl: Wow we are gettin alot a bang for our buck! :rofl: :rofl:

787 billion divided by 1.2 million = 655 833.333

[JohnSmith2007 353]

:rofl: :rofl: Wow we are gettin alot a bang for our buck! :rofl: :rofl:

787 billion divided by 1.2 million = 655 833.333

For once Col. Lingus makes a real point. That is an awful high price to pay per job. Wouldn't it have been cheaper to just give those 1.2 million people each $75,000. and call it even? Shoot, for that kind of money you could have retired 1.2 million older people. We just blew almost a trillion dollars on nothing.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

from the USA Today article:

Bill Cheney, chief economist at John Hancock Financial Services, is relatively optimistic. He sees unemployment falling to 8.9% by the fourth quarter of this year. Cheney says other economists are "nervous Nellies," shell-shocked by the length and depth of this downturn. They've forgotten that "the deeper the recession, the faster you come out of it."

But Diane Swonk, chief economist at Mesirow Financial, says creating jobs is tougher than it was the last time unemployment passed 10% in the early '80s. The reason: The 1981-82 recession was engineered by the Federal Reserve to tame inflation through high interest rates. The Fed brought the economy back simply by reversing course and cutting rates.

This time, the Fed has pushed short-term rates to near zero and has flooded markets with money. But the financial system is so damaged by the Wall Street meltdown that it isn't converting easy money into loans and economic growth: "It's like the Fed is dropping money from a helicopter and it's getting caught in the trees," Swonk says.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2010-01-25-usa-today-economic-survey-obama-stimulus_N.htm

[JohnSmith2007 353]

from the USA Today article:

Bill Cheney, chief economist at John Hancock Financial Services, is relatively optimistic. He sees unemployment falling to 8.9% by the fourth quarter of this year. Cheney says other economists are "nervous Nellies," shell-shocked by the length and depth of this downturn. They've forgotten that "the deeper the recession, the faster you come out of it."

But Diane Swonk, chief economist at Mesirow Financial, says creating jobs is tougher than it was the last time unemployment passed 10% in the early '80s. The reason: The 1981-82 recession was engineered by the Federal Reserve to tame inflation through high interest rates. The Fed brought the economy back simply by reversing course and cutting rates.

This time, the Fed has pushed short-term rates to near zero and has flooded markets with money. But the financial system is so damaged by the Wall Street meltdown that it isn't converting easy money into loans and economic growth: "It's like the Fed is dropping money from a helicopter and it's getting caught in the trees," Swonk says.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2010-01-25-usa-today-economic-survey-obama-stimulus_N.htm

Your point is? The trillion dollars we pissed away did nothing but increase the size of our debt and the government. We could have done nothing and the economy would have done the same thing and we would have saved ourselves a trillion dollars.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Your point is? The trillion dollars we pissed away did nothing but increase the size of our debt and the government. We could have done nothing and the economy would have done the same thing and we would have saved ourselves a trillion dollars.

It was $825 billion, not a trillian. A third of it went to tax cuts ($275 billion), and about $318 billion went to cash strapped states. Ask the states who received the stimulus money if it wasn't really needed. The Stimulus Bill spared us from having another Great Depression.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

It was $825 billion, not a trillian. A third of it went to tax cuts ($275 billion), and about $318 billion went to cash strapped states. Ask the states who received the stimulus money if it wasn't really needed. The Stimulus Bill spared us from having another Great Depression.

Right...

So your OK with spending almost a trillion dollars to make 1.2 million jobs? As far as stopping another "great depression", haha!! Talk about fear mongering! We were no where near a great depression.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

It was $825 billion, not a trillian. A third of it went to tax cuts ($275 billion), and about $318 billion went to cash strapped states. Ask the states who received the stimulus money if it wasn't really needed. The Stimulus Bill spared us from having another Great Depression.

:rofl: :rofl: California is good to go then? California is still 550 billion in debt WONK BOY!

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

For once Col. Lingus makes a real point. That is an awful high price to pay per job. Wouldn't it have been cheaper to just give those 1.2 million people each $75,000. and call it even? Shoot, for that kind of money you could have retired 1.2 million older people. We just blew almost a trillion dollars on nothing.

I make more sense than most of the tools in this ward.

[mawilson 2,133]

Not only didn't it help..... few ever saw all where it went.

Most of it went to the states to pay for unemployment, COBRA and other benefit extensions.

Only a small portion was used to create jobs.