Unemployment hits 9.8%

[JohnSmith2007 353]

The stimulus failed to meet its stated objectives with respect to the unemployment rate.

This is objectively true and no one is going to argue that.

However, that is quite different from saying that the stimulus failed to stimulate any economic growth.

Where is the growth? How do we know that the small growth in the last 2 years wouldn't have happpend without the stimulus?

The stimulus bill was sold to the American people as a way to keep unemployment below 8%. Those promises were made so the lawmakers would vote for it. Those promises have not been realized.

What will be the long term effect of a trillion dollars (yes I know it isn't exactly a trillion) of new debt on our future economy?

[JohnSmith2007 353]

Catepillar took stimulus money and I know of at least one person who works there, and who was worried about the possibility of a layoff.

So what? Was the trillion dollars worth that one persons job? I don't think any company should have gotten stimulus money.

[^_^ 5,021]

How do we know that the small growth in the last 2 years wouldn't have happpend without the stimulus?

We don't know. However, we do know that growth would have been less by some amount without the stimulus.

After all, unless the stimulus was 100% "wasted" (i.e. the money burned), some stimulative impact was inevitable.

[^_^ 5,021]

So what? Was the trillion dollars worth that one persons job? I don't think any company should have gotten stimulus money.

This is actually a good point. Bickering over political expectations vis a vis the unemployment rate is silly. What is really interesting is whether or not the amount of money spent stimulating stimulated enough for it to have been worth it.

I think we won't know the answer to that (objectively, outside of the usual political spin) for a decade or more.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

We don't know. However, we do know that growth would have been less by some amount without the stimulus.

After all, unless the stimulus was 100% "wasted" (i.e. the money burned), some stimulative impact was inevitable.

Ok, I will give you that. The point is that it was billed as a way to keep unemployment below 8%. It didn't do that, not even close. The small amount of benifit we got isn't worth the price tag.

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

So what? Was the trillion dollars worth that one persons job? I don't think any company should have gotten stimulus money.

Who said it was only one person? The CEO of Catepillar said the money would save 22,000 jobs. Do you know anyone who works for Catepillar? Because if not, you don't know what you are talking about.

Edited December 3, 2010 by 8TBVBN

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Show me where the economy was stimulated in any real way. If it didn't stimulate then it was wasted.

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

Who said it was only one person? The CEO of Catepillar said the money would save 22,000 jobs. Do you know anyone who works for Catepillar? Because if not, you don't know what you are talking about.

you know the ceo of catepillar?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The stimulus failed to meet its stated objectives with respect to the unemployment rate.

This is objectively true and no one is going to argue that.

However, that is quite different from saying that the stimulus failed to stimulate any economic growth.

That's right. The unemployment rate went up quite a bit more than was expected. These types of estimates are problematic especially when it wasn't even clear at the time just how deep the trouble was that the economy was in. It's funny, though, that the same folks that keep harping on this 8% figure are the same folks that take no issue whatsoever with the promised 5.5 million jobs from the Bush tax cuts that never actually materialized.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

So? After a huge drop like that the economy always comes back a little. The bigger the drop the bigger the gain afterwards. The stimulus was designed to keep unemployment below 8%. It didn't do that. I maintain that without the stimulus the economy would have been the same as it is now. The money was wasted. Show me where the unemployment rate has gone down because of the stimulus.

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

Who said it was only one person? The CEO of Catepillar said the money would save 22,000 jobs. Do you know anyone who works for Catepillar? Because if not, you don't know what you are talking about.

EAST PEORIA, ILL. -- President Obama today repeated the claim we asked about yesterday at the press briefing that Jim Owens, the CEO of Caterpillar, Inc., "said that if Congress passes our plan, this company will be able to rehire some of the folks who were just laid off."

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/02/doh-caterpillar.html

[^_^ 5,021]

My biggest beef with the stimulus was how 40% of the money in the stimulus came in the form of the payroll tax cut. That was unnecessary, given how few people even noticed that it happened.

I would have much rather have seen the entire money go to repairing and building out new infrastructure. I know people harp on the jobs that stuff creates but to me the real value of that is in the long-term impetus it provides to economic growth. Does anyone think we're done reaping the economic benefits of the interstate highway system? We're not even close.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

That's right. The unemployment rate went up quite a bit more than was expected. These types of estimates are problematic especially when it wasn't even clear at the time just how deep the trouble was that the economy was in. It's funny, though, that the same folks that keep harping on this 8% figure are the same folks that take no issue whatsoever with the promised 5.5 million jobs from the Bush tax cuts that never actually materialized.

Bush inherited a recession. Granted it wasn't as bad as the one Obama got. Bush's answer was to cut taxes. For 6 years after that we had unemployment in the 4-6% range. Obama's answer was a trillion dollar stimulus and massive bailouts. Two years later unemployment is higher than when he started. Tell me which one worked better.

[^_^ 5,021]

Bush inherited a recession. Granted it wasn't as bad as the one Obama got. Bush's answer was to cut taxes. For 6 years after that we had unemployment in the 4-6% range. Obama's answer was a trillion dollar stimulus and massive bailouts. Two years later unemployment is higher than when he started. Tell me which one worked better.

These were very different recessions. Not just in scale, but in cause.

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/02/doh-caterpillar.html

he didn't say "the money would save 22,000 jobs"

22,000 is the number catepillar said they'd have to lay off.

"Asked if the stimulus package would be able to stop the 22,000 layoffs or not, Owens said, "I think realistically no. The truth is we're going to have more layoffs before we start hiring again"

"It is going to take some time before that stimulus bill" means re-hiring, he said."

in other words, "some" is not 22,000.

Edited December 3, 2010 by charles!