Stimulus 1 didn't work, why would we gamble more taxpayer money on a second round?
We’re being asked to trust the government and gamble another 447 billion taxpayer dollars we’ll don’t have. The rationale is that jobs will be created, and as an example, Stimulus One is used as having created or saved 2 million jobs. The jobs claim has had me wondering. I’ve been doing some rough calculations, and those prompted me to put pen to paper. I’d like to hear what you think.
I personally don’t know anyone whose job was created or saved by Stimulus One. I wonder if I’m unusual. There are something like 140 million wage-earners in USA. If we assume 2 million of those have jobs because of the stimulus, that’s one in 70. How many working people does the average person know? I started to count how many I know and got to 35 fairly quickly.
Given these numbers, doesn’t that mean between me and one or two other people, we should know at least ONE person with a job owing to Stimulus One? I don’t know anyone else who knows someone with a “stimulus” job either. If you don’t like my numbers, use your own and see what you come up with. I’m afraid it might be hard to find ANYONE who has a job owing to Stimulus One.
If this causes you to have even a little doubt about that jobs claim, think carefully before supporting the latest stimulus program, the “American Jobs Acts.” We need a solution that works, and we’re running out of time.
Art Godfrey
Ypsilanti
Comments
outdoor6709
Sat, Oct 8, 2011 : 1:47 p.m.
Who has done more to stimulate the economy, Steve Jobs or President Obama?
outdoor6709
Sat, Oct 8, 2011 : 1:44 p.m.
The problem with Keynesian Econimics is we only implement th fun part of the theory. The theory is the government spends more in bad economic times and repay th deficites during good times. We have so far have not repayed any of the deficites. Any good economics textbook will tell you the government cannot be a creator of jobs. Government spends by taking from one and giving to another, therefore there is no net gain. Very little of current stimulus will creat jobs. Very little money, less than 10% is spent on infrastructure spending. Most money goes to either popular tax cuts or to governments to prop up their budgets. Neither creates long term jobs. Right after the election we will be in same spot. Just say no to the drug of free money. As for believing Government sources of information, would that be the same soucre that changed the way unemployement is calculated and changed the way inflation is calculated. Do you really believe unemployment is only 9.1 % and inflation is 0% ?
jcj
Tue, Oct 4, 2011 : 1:36 p.m.
Gotta love these opinions that give the local intellectual snobs a chance to put their collective noses in the air!
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Tue, Oct 4, 2011 : 7:44 p.m.
Yeah. How dare they actually have FACTS to support their opinions. What a bunch of snobs. Much better and much more American to let complete ignorance determine one's opinions. Yeah. That'll show 'em!!1 LOL Good Night and Good Luck
Mike K
Mon, Oct 3, 2011 : 9:11 p.m.
As a conservative minded individual, I would endorse further stimulus if and only if productive assets were created. For example, there is a growing concern about health care, so why not stimulate the economy by building 1000 - 2000 federally funded health centers equiped with MRI's, CAT Scans, 100 beds..... The reach into the private would be decent, and these centers would have to be staffed. We (and I do mean "we") could make our (and I do mean "our") money back through some agreement with the (private sector) users of these assets. Imagine if we were to build a brand new entire naval fleet? Again, the reach would be great, unless China gets the steel job like they did in CA. What a lousy story that was. The most liberal state in the nation turning it's back on its constituents to save money. Here they had a chance to make a decision to stimulate the economy, and they whiffed. Extending unemployment benefit does not stimulate anything. That money is used for necessities. It keeps a cashier working at Meijer or Walmart. Giving state money to patch budget holes isn't very stimulating either. Same goes with rebuilding our roads and bridges. Build something new, useful and needed.
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Tue, Oct 4, 2011 : 1:19 a.m.
@Mike, Believe it or not, I agree with most of your comment, though the cost of building an entirely new Navy is way beyond our means. For example, the USS Gerald Ford, the first of the Ford-class aircraft carriers, is currently under construction at Newport News, VA. It is currently estimated that that ship will cost somewhere near $13 billion by the time it is done. You are incorrect, about the stimulative value of unemployment (and food stamps and welfare as well). These are the cheapest and most efficient way to stimulate the economy there is. Looking at it on the individual basis is the wrong way to do it, except in that you correctly identify that every penny of it will be spent. That spending at the macro level by millions of people, whether buying clothing, shoes, or bread, will have a large stimulative effect on the economy. Is there graft and corruption in these programs? Absolutely, and that needs to be investigated and ended. But these programs are far more stimulative that you suggest. See: <a href="http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_02/016783.php" rel='nofollow'>http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_02/016783.php</a> GN&GL
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Mon, Oct 3, 2011 : 5:56 p.m.
I come to this far too late and likely no one will read this post. That said: Saying that the first stimulus had no economic impact is a conservative talking point completely devoid of any factual basis. Concerning numerous federal programs that overlapped the late Bush administration and the early Obama administration, John Zandi, who served as McCain's economic adviser for his 2008 campaign, has co-authored a report that contends those programs created or saved 9 million jobs. Source: <a href="http://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/documents/End-of-Great-Recession.pdf" rel='nofollow'>http://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/documents/End-of-Great-Recession.pdf</a> Regarding the 1st Stimulus alone, he has concluded that it saved or created 2.5 to 3 million jobs. Source: <a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/monitor_breakfast/2010/0825/Economist-Zandi-John-Boehner-just-wrong-about-Obama-stimulus" rel='nofollow'>http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/monitor_breakfast/2010/0825/Economist-Zandi-John-Boehner-just-wrong-about-Obama-stimulus</a> But we wouldn't want to let actual facts get in the way of a good opinion. Good Night and Good Luck
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Mon, Oct 3, 2011 : 8:02 p.m.
Correction to my above: hit the wrong key. 8 million jobs, not 9 million. Sorry for the confusion. GN&GL
PersonX
Mon, Oct 3, 2011 : 2:16 a.m.
Presumably this blog does not [publish every opinion piece that is submitted, but makes choices. Why did this uninformed personal "feeling," unsupported by any data, make it through the process? Can we not ask that you try to maintain some standards?
Goober
Mon, Oct 3, 2011 : 10:39 a.m.
This is not a blog.
Sparty
Sun, Oct 2, 2011 : 11:32 p.m.
Except every qualified economist says that millions of jobs were created, others saved from elimination, and more financial resources saved due to not having to pay unemployment and other safety net programs to these people. What are your qualifications other than your coffee group doesn't know of anyone hired thru stimulus dollars, and how would they even know if they were?
gild
Sun, Oct 2, 2011 : 11:17 p.m.
This letter is just silly. The stimulus was far from perfect. It was loaded up with pet projects and lots of "goodies" aimed at rewarding Democratic constituencies. But the writer makes a major mistake by assuming that his personal experience is all there is to know ("nobody I know benefited, so nobody did at all"). Plus, if you have children who go to school, chances are you DO know somebody whose job was saved by the stimulus, because the state used a big chunk of that money to prevent massive teacher layoffs.
Ron Granger
Sun, Oct 2, 2011 : 9:10 p.m.
This opinion piece seems to complain, while offering absolutely no ideas or alternatives. So you think we should do nothing?
Basic Bob
Mon, Oct 3, 2011 : 4:20 a.m.
Doing nothing is always an option. I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand, since it could be far better than doing the wrong thing.
DonBee
Sun, Oct 2, 2011 : 7:28 p.m.
The "stimulus bill" was not. It was a hand out bill. China did things differently - they built infrastructure, lots and lots of infrastructure - that put people to work directly. This one is no better, it is $447 Billion of which less than $80 billion is infrastructure - the balance is handouts. I could easily support $600 billion in infrastructure, roads, etc. I cannot support all the handouts. I would be very happy with using the money to create a new version of the CCC and have everyone who wants money sign up.
Sparty
Sun, Oct 2, 2011 : 6:15 p.m.
Except every qualified economist says that millions of jobs were created, others saved from elimination, and more financial resources saved due to not having to pay unemployment and other safety net programs to these people. What are your qualifications other than your coffee group doesn't know of anyone hired thru stimulus dollars, and how would they even know if they were?
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Mon, Oct 3, 2011 : 8:04 p.m.
Concerning numerous federal programs that overlapped the late Bush administration and the early Obama administration, John Zandi, who served as McCain's economic adviser for his 2008 campaign, has co-authored a report that contends those programs created or saved 8 million jobs. Source: <a href="http://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/documents/End-of-Great-Recession.pdf" rel='nofollow'>http://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/documents/End-of-Great-Recession.pdf</a> Regarding the 1st Stimulus alone, he has concluded that it saved or created 2.5 to 3 million jobs. Source: <a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/monitor_breakfast/2010/0825/Economist-Zandi-John-Boehner-just-wrong-about-Obama-stimulus" rel='nofollow'>http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/monitor_breakfast/2010/0825/Economist-Zandi-John-Boehner-just-wrong-about-Obama-stimulus</a> Good Night and Good Luck
Sparty
Mon, Oct 3, 2011 : 3:27 a.m.
This link talks abouts 100 distinguished economists who say the stimulus didn't work. It lists three - all conservative republicans who offered no facts to back up the claim. It's just nonsense.
EyeHeartA2
Mon, Oct 3, 2011 : 1:37 a.m.
...so I take it your definition of a "qualified economist" must be one that agrees with you? Otherwise, here are 100 economists that don't. None of those must be "qualified", correct? <a href="http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2010/06/10/economists-stimulus-not-working-obama-must-rein-in-spending" rel='nofollow'>http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2010/06/10/economists-stimulus-not-working-obama-must-rein-in-spending</a>
David Briegel
Sun, Oct 2, 2011 : 5:06 p.m.
Well Tim, it's like this. Those "too big to fail" "job creators" aren't spending any money. But the little guy who is being victimized by these insane policies will spend every nickle he gets to feed his family, look for a job, etc. The goose that laid the golden egg was the demand created by those who spend and not the lie of "trickle down" tax cuts! For the last 30 years we had to listen to that right wing mythological LIE! And here we are. And the right wingnuts double down on the LIE! And they keep fooling the middle class lemings into voting against their very own self interests! Delusional! Sad.
tim
Sun, Oct 2, 2011 : 4:31 p.m.
These typs of arguments usually go something like this " If the First plan is bad then the second plan is better". I'm not convinced that the second plan is good either. The economy is dependent on consumer confidence. The problem is that people are afraid to spend money. Stimulus -- tax cuts for business ( anything from the left or the right ) won't create jobs until people start buying stuff. I thought people were loosening up a little last winter/spring until gas prices went through the roof, they became afraid and quit spending again.
ocho
Sun, Oct 2, 2011 : 4:53 p.m.
*cite* Argh... I'm in danger of having my whole comment ripped to shreds based on a typo!
ocho
Sun, Oct 2, 2011 : 4:50 p.m.
I agree with your comment on consumer confidence. It's arguable whether government stimulus was as efficient or broad as it needed to be, but I've heard many times that economists generally agree that it softened the effects of the recession (sorry, no sources to site). If that's true then the stimulus $$ (or stimulus $$/job) likely did something to somewhat soften the blow to consumer confidence as well. Could the recession have been worse? -- we don't really know. Did the stimulus soften the blow? -- economists say yes. Was it worth the outlay of money? -- tough to answer, I think, even with the benefit of hindsight. Quite a difficult decision to make as a government official trying to spur on an economy and consumer confidence. Another comment: Losing a job is a double (or triple or more?) whammy to the gov't and economy -- less incoming tax revenue, more outlays of assistance, lower consumer confidence (and lower property values>lower tax for local gov't). I think the calculus of what's it worth to save a job is better left to the economists (I value academic and professional economists' scrutiny and input to gov't policy).
Kafkaland
Sun, Oct 2, 2011 : 4:31 p.m.
It's worth repeating until the last tea partier gets it: The plural of anecdote is not data!
Goober
Sun, Oct 2, 2011 : 3:57 p.m.
A portion of the nw jobs bill extends unemployment benefits. How does this create jobs?
Chimay
Sun, Oct 2, 2011 : 11:23 p.m.
@RayA2 - Thanks for your comment. For every $1 Michigan spends on education, $1.19 in spent on prisons. We're one of just four states with incarceration expenditures that high; the other 46 spend less than $1 on prisons for every $1 spent on education. Abysmal. Embarrassing. Michigan spends approximately $35,000 per year on each inmate. I doubt anyone is making that much money from unemployment. Seems to me that we are saving a significant amount of money by helping people survive vs. incarcerating someone or even creating situations where people don't have the basics - shelter and food. But, I don't think people that rail against unemployment benefits can see beyond them as 'entitlements' and grasp the larger picture. A girl can dream, though.
Ron Granger
Sun, Oct 2, 2011 : 9:13 p.m.
The money goes immediately back into the economy as the families who receive those critical funds spend them to support themselves. Maybe you haven't heard - jobs are scarce. So job searches can take a long time. Unemployment lets people survive while they look for work. It hopefully helps them stay in their homes, keep their families together, etc.
RayA2
Sun, Oct 2, 2011 : 4:26 p.m.
Aside from the incredibly cruel intent of your question, people will do anything they have to feed their families and themselves. Next time somone robs you at the ATM or breaks into your home, ask yourself if it wouldn't have been better to maintain their unemployment benefits. While you're at it, ask yourself what it takes to incarcerate the same people.
Goober
Sun, Oct 2, 2011 : 4:01 p.m.
Oops. I did not catch my typo. My bad! Meant 'new', not 'nw'.
braggslaw
Sun, Oct 2, 2011 : 3:45 p.m.
I believe each "new" job cost the taxpayers over $200,000 dolars and on top of that they were temporary or the money disappeared (solyndra anyone?). Govt. does not create jobs, it takes money from the private sector which is the true creator of jobs.
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Thu, Oct 6, 2011 : 1:59 a.m.
1) If you're writing of the USSR, it collapsed in 1991. 2) Anyone who thinks the current American economy is in any way analogous to that of the Soviet Union might make the mistake in thinking that the latter was still a nation in 1996. GN&GL
Arborcomment
Thu, Oct 6, 2011 : 12:07 a.m.
"to provide for the common defense and general welfare". There was never a question whether the government creates jobs. The question is, to what extent does the government try to do so, how efficient compared to commercial interests, and the extent of control over a capitalist economy. We recall another country where the state controlled all aspects. It lasted from 1917 to about 1996.
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Wed, Oct 5, 2011 : 3:32 a.m.
"With the long history ( spanning both parties) of defense contractor gouging I am surprised you would use them to ? bolster your argument." Apple and Oranges. The question is whether or not the government creates jobs. Whether Newport News Shipyards, Boeing, Grumman-Northrup, General Dynamics, and hundreds upon hundreds of other companies, those jobs would not exist but for government spending. Not to mention the 1.5 million personnel in the active force, another 1.5 million in the reserves, and another 600K DOD civilians who would not have jobs but for military spending. Is there gouging happening. Certainly. And there are millions of jobs funded by federal spending, too. There is no more vacuous a claim on in the conservative echo chamber than the "government does not create jobs". But the conservative echo chamber does not like facts, as your posts at the end of this discussion make clear. GN&GL
jcj
Tue, Oct 4, 2011 : 1:32 p.m.
ERMG With the long history ( spanning both parties) of defense contractor gouging I am surprised you would use them to ? bolster your argument.
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Mon, Oct 3, 2011 : 8:08 p.m.
Faux Noise said it. It must be true. "Govt. does not create jobs" Really? I'm certain all of the employees of the nation's defense contractors would beg to differ, especially now that the Super Committee is looking at deep cuts in defense contracts. But it is a wonderfully simple and vacuous conservative talking point to claim that the government does not create jobs. Good Night and Good Luck
John Q
Mon, Oct 3, 2011 : 2:14 a.m.
If the government doesn't create jobs, then who are all those people employed by all the companies building tanks, fighter planes and warships? Slave labor? Robots? Who pays them to build those things? Daddy Warbucks? Erik Prince? The stupidity of such a claim is only exceeded by the ease with which it is dismissed.
Arborcomment
Sun, Oct 2, 2011 : 8:40 p.m.
sh1, so I read your link, it seems clear that even in a rebuttal, they don't know the impact of the first stimulus. I see figures ranging from 60k, 100k, and the conservatives' higher 200k and even 278k. While I don't need a figure down to the last penny, some kind of number is needed to determine the program's worth and assess any follow-on. What I did see was waste, an attempt to support the status quo in state and local government funding, and "shovel ready projects" that the President later admitted, weren't. Members of his own party are now stalling his jobs/stimulus round two. Maybe they know something we don't. I'm just not ready to have my children pay for this again until we better understand the first run through that chute.
sh1
Sun, Oct 2, 2011 : 4:24 p.m.
Just because you believe it don't make it so: <a href="http://mediamatters.org/research/201108050016" rel='nofollow'>http://mediamatters.org/research/201108050016</a>
David Briegel
Sun, Oct 2, 2011 : 3:44 p.m.
Art, Do you know anyone who got "trickled down" upon? I'll bet you know a lot of people who were part of the 750,000 people every single month who lost their jobs in that wonderful Bush economy! And Art, whatever you do, don't listen to Warren Buffett. What could he possibly know about capitalism that you don't already know?
Cash
Sun, Oct 2, 2011 : 3:30 p.m.
So......here is the solution! We need to raise taxes on millionaires. Bush lowered the taxes for the ultra rich and so began the recession. Thank you for supporting President Obama's desire to raise taxes on millionaires and cutting corporate loopholes. Then let the President's job bill begin!
Basic Bob
Mon, Oct 3, 2011 : 4:14 a.m.
@Joe Hood, You're close. Anyone with a full-time job who does not pay union dues is a millionaire. Anyone who does not vote a straight ticket is a republikon teapartyist.
Joe Hood
Mon, Oct 3, 2011 : 1:46 a.m.
I always thought millionaires were people with a million dollars. Seems the present administration has defined millionaires with those that make $200K. What's next, anyone with a job is considered a millionaire? Why just corporate loopholes, why not all loopholes. Why not a straight flat tax on everything?
Jake C
Sun, Oct 2, 2011 : 3:23 p.m.
And this Recovery.gov web page lists all sorts of local businesses and government entitles and University projects that received stimulus money and create/ saved jobs because of it, but I'm not sure if I believe that either since I try not to believe anything that's on the internet: <a href="http://www.recovery.gov/Transparency/RecipientReportedData/pages/RecipientReportedDataMap.aspx?ZipCode=48104&datasource=recipient" rel='nofollow'>http://www.recovery.gov/Transparency/RecipientReportedData/pages/RecipientReportedDataMap.aspx?ZipCode=48104&datasource=recipient</a>
RayA2
Sun, Oct 2, 2011 : 3:17 p.m.
Why would anyone write such meaningless opinion? There are no facts here, just dreamed up insinuation with a few rhetorical questions thrown in to push a conservative agenda. I can justifiably contradict the above statement in fewer words. The stimulus act prevented the devastation caused by a too loosely regulated financial industry, and by the accelerated increase in the wealth gap between the very richest in this country and the rest of us, that was the direct result of actions taken by conservatives in office. It was a levee meant to hold back the rising tide of conservative destruction, not the elimination of its source.
Jake C
Sun, Oct 2, 2011 : 3:15 p.m.
I'm not convinced China exists. Hear me out on this. I've heard "some people" claim that over a billion people live in China. The population of the US is over 300 million. Therefore, I should know at least 3 Chinese for every 1 American I know. But I haven't met one! It really makes you think, huh?
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Mon, Oct 3, 2011 : 8:10 p.m.
Brilliant retort!! Good Night and Good Luck!!
sh1
Sun, Oct 2, 2011 : 3:12 p.m.
Not knowing anyone personally who benefited from the stimulus is not proof it didn't create jobs. Read here: <a href="http://www.factcheck.org/2010/09/did-the-stimulus-create-jobs/" rel='nofollow'>http://www.factcheck.org/2010/09/did-the-stimulus-create-jobs/</a> The stimulus was imperfect, agreed, mainly in that it wasn't comprehensive enough.