Economists: The stimulus didn't help

Economists: The stimulus didn't help

money.cnn.com

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.

(visit the link for the full news article)



Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
Economists petition against the stimulus package

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

Economists agree that the recent Jobs Bill is also an ineffective piece of legislation!

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."

The Stimulus was mainly a political payback giveaway to friends of Obama, teachers and other unions. The Jobs Bill was simply a waist of money.

Lowering business and capitol gains taxes does work to create jobs but would never be considered by the Obama regime.



money.cnn.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

The government was buying wholesale stocks in major companies, then they tell us the "tax payers" own them. Where's my dividend check?

reply to post by plumranch


Economists: The stimulus didn't help


I honestly never thought of it as trying to turn the economy around in an attempt to make for flank speed again. I looked at it like firing up the bilge pumps to keep the ship from sinking.


I'm no economist.



[edit on 27-4-2010 by SLAYER69]

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by plumranch

 

Economists: The stimulus didn't help


I honestly never thought of it as trying to turn the economy around in an attempt to make for flank speed again. I looked at like firing up the bilge pumps to keep the ship from sinking.


I'm no economist.

Thats what I thought also, they know that there is no way to pay for all the future liabilities (SS, Medicare, Pensions both federal and state, etc. etc.) that baby boomers are about to use, so they are doing everything they can by hook or crook to keep the boat floating. The dollar will become worthless in the future, our debt is being bought by us and more and more signs that we are just buying time. The only money that is left is the 401k's and pension funds and just google about the govt. wanting to use both and you will see that when a country goes after the peoples retirement, they are broke.

I love all this hype lately about how the economy is recovering. Yeah right. The economy is hardly recovering. Its just the statistics are so damn manipulated nowadays. No one knows what to believe. Housing is continuing to plummet. Jobs? What jobs? Just wait till war breaks out in the middle east. Government budgets both federal and state are hurting .

Nah, I wouldn't think $200. would do much more than help with one or two utility bills for one month. You can't save the former middle class of the USA by throwing $200. at them. People need and want jobs and a living wage. It's pretty simple really, but I'm still grateful for the $200...just don't call it an economic stimulus package. It's pathetic...almost insulting if I didn't need it so badly.

Where's my interest on those bailout loans? None for me?

I said before all of these stimulus packages that we will never know if these packages will help or not. No way to determine IMO whether or not the market in general improved or not from such a minute action.

What I do know is that certain groups were paid nicely and did not have to worry about the economic down turn because of such plans.

In other words, the value of your dollar went down while other people got to benefit...

Thats the government.

The economy is in shambles. There certainly is no recovery. Of course, the stimulus didn't help.
I would bet that virtually everyone on this board has either immediate family members, or close friends that are either unemployed or under-employed, and have been so, for a significant period of time. That is the measure of the "strength" of this country. The only "jobs" created have been in Washington DC, and in reality, they are not real jobs, merely political payoffs for favors or votes. Our country would be better if there were LESS DC jobs, not more. All they do is spend what little money is left on patronage and lobbyists.

reply to post by SLAYER69

I looked at like firing up the bilge pumps to keep the ship from sinking.

Don't think in retrospect that bilge pumps were needed because we weren't sinking. Candidates like Obama and McCain should have known that! Instead, Bush bowed out and let Obama compose the Stimulus. Which amounted to an amazing $789 Billion.

But Bush put us in debt for $500 Billion so what? Well, the true cost of the Obama Stimulus including all the entitlements was $3.27 Trillion! Now you can argue that figure but have to admit that it is much higher than say a Trillion!
True Cost of Stimulus $3.27 Trillion

All of the major news outlets are reporting that the stimulus bill voted out of conference committee last night has a meager $789 billion price tag. This number is pure fantasy. No one believes that the increased funding for programs the left loves like Head Start, Medicaid, COBRA, and the Earned Income Tax Credit is in anyway temporary. No Congress under control of the left will ever cut funding for these programs. So what is the true cost of the stimulus if these spending increases are made permanent?

reply to post by Red Comet

The government was buying wholesale stocks in major companies, then they tell us the "tax payers" own them. Where's my dividend check?

Good point and stared!

The only up side I can think of was the the Fed (using TARP) bought Citi (C) at $2 something and later Citi bought the stock back in the upper $3's and then Obama bragged a lot about the gain! Probably one of the first times the government did something right! (But I digress, LOL)

Maybe there are other examples, I would hope!

If the government has to take away $200,000 to $500,000 in your tax money for every $35,000 job saved, they'll claim they are saving the economy. Meanwhile the real harm has yet to hit our economy. I read the increased Medicaid required payouts for South Carolina alone will result in the state having to pay out an additional one billion dollars a year. The state just had a large budget shortage of a couple of a hundred million and had to cut teachers and every other budget to the bone. Now this requirement is coming thanks to new health care laws. There isn't enough money to go around. I'm starting to wonder if the current administration is planning on bankrupting the US so that we are forced to use whatever currency the IMF deems we must use and makes our currency worthless in a few years from now. I noticed many of the required health care mandates take place a few years from now. Increasing spending beyond the ability of a government to collect it in taxes is a recipe for economic disaster.

If things aren't bad enough our politicians want to add another $1600 to $1700 in annual energy costs to the average American's energy expenses via a cap and trade bill they haven't had a chance to get to yet.

I once thought through savings and capital appreciation that if I ever got a million dollars in savings after 30 to 40 years, I would be set for retirement. Now I see I will need to be a multi-millionaire to even have a chance. I believe my social security payments if I ever get any may be enough to buy a cheeseburger. That is if our money is still worth anything in 30 years.


[edit on 26-4-2010 by orionthehunter]

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.

You liars CNN!

That "job growth" was Easter you fools. EASTER. And it was only temporary.

And boosting payrolls? Where did we get that one from? The wages in the US have declined 3% since the begging of the Obama administration. Who's payrolls are we talking about here the bankers? Yeah they got boosted alright.

More baseless lies and propaganda from the 4th branch of the government CNN.

reply to post by orionthehunter

If things aren't bad enough our politicians want to add another $1600 to $1700 in annual energy costs to the average American's energy expenses via a cap and trade bill they haven't had a chance to get to yet.

You are getting the overall picture, my friend, bankrupt the country, put everyone under the poverty level and increase the debt to levels our grandchildren will never be able to pay off.

Thank you Obama regime! Unfunded mandates as far as the eye can see!

Originally posted by plumranch

But Bush put us in debt for $500 Billion so what? Well, the true cost of the Obama Stimulus including all the entitlements was $3.27 Trillion! Now you can argue that figure but have to admit that it is much higher than say a Trillion!

Bush increased the national debt from $5 Trillion to almost $11 Trillion. Even using republican math, that's a little bit more than $500 Billion. He ran deficits of close to $500 Billion almost every year he was in office, accounting for about half of that extra $6 Trillion debt he left the country with. The other half came from two wars he fought that were funded by special borrowing and never included in the national budget. And in point of fact, the 2009 budget deficit belongs to Bush as well since the Obama administration's first budget began in September and is now only 6 months in.

While the vocal minorities like to ignore all the facts and blame all ills on the current administration, the silent majority is quite aware of the events that led up to the almost total collapse of the nation just over 12 months ago.

Obama's new Budget Deficit Math

reply to post by mythatsabigprobe

Let’s look back. Here’s the litany of Bush deficits from 2004-2008:

2004: $412.5 billion
2005: $318.6
2006: $247.7
2007: $162.8
2008: $454.8
Source – The Government Accounting Office (GAO) document, “A Citizens Guide to the 2008 Financial Report of the United States of America: The Federal Government’s Financial Health”


In old math calculations, the total deficit spending from 2004-2008 (the last 5 years of Bush’s second term in office) was $1.596 trillion and change.

When Obama campaigned it was all about how he would reverse the Bush deficit spending that the public was all up in arms about. Had Obama been truthful about his plans for increasing deficit spending he never would have been elected.


It isn't about Bush, however and this is only Obama's first year in office!



[edit on 27/4/10 by plumranch]

THE Øbama stimulus or economic-recovery-plan....has not been
reeled out in its entirity just yet.

myself and many millions of other SS recipients/ veterans/ retired...
will be getting issued a one-time $250.oo check from either SS or the VA
sometime in the month of May.
The money is already allocated...all it needs to be is distributed !

Øbama, used the populist approach in this instance, to award a proxy COLA increase to the people on (quote) Entitlements (/quote)...
because he and the gov't masterminds pulling the strings, knew that the CPI figures which allow any increase ...were Phoney-Baloney figures
(in fact the BLS's CPI figures show that retired people are making out
like bandits, and should be giving-up a portion of their handsome monthly checks)
but Mr. Ø [aka; no-baaaama] is taking the populist stance ->>
because the 2010 election cycle looks dreadful for the Dems.

But---hey , i'm not about to refuse a mere $250.oo stipend when the elite banksters are getting 'benefits' of way over $$$ 1/2 Million each.


chew that fat & grizzle fellow posters

reply to post by St Udio

But---hey , i'm not about to refuse a mere $250.oo stipend when the elite banksters are getting 'benefits' of way over $$$ 1/2 Million each.

So the inference is that since the bankers are accused of excessive benefits it's alright for the government to waist money on $250/ retiree stipends, etc.? BTW there were $53,000,000 people receiving SS benifits in March. So the cost would be 53M X $250= 13.25 Billion in, as you imply, unneeded spending. A sort of buy the SS vote giveaway?

And since Bush pushed up deficits it's good for Obama also? Shouldn't be a problem with voters come this Fall?

Originally posted by plumranch




.... So the cost would be 53M X $250= 13.25 Billion in, as you imply, unneeded spending. A sort of buy the SS vote giveaway?

Yo plumranch....
'

did i stutter or something???


Yes Øbama is buying the entitlement vote ! imho


~and trying a vain attempt to 'stimulate' or 'excite' the economy~

(again for the ulterior purpose of portraying himself as a concerned Populist')
the game is both compounded & confounding


[edit on 27-4-2010 by St Udio]

reply to post by St Udio

did i stutter or something??? Yes Øbama is buying the entitlement vote ! imho ~and trying a vain attempt to 'stimulate' or 'excite' the economy~

Roger that, loud and clear!

And please enjoy that stimulating $250! Even more than I enjoyed sending the Feds several thousands in underpayment this month! ('')

Good to hear from you!