It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
According to the CBO, the stimulus may have added 3.3 million jobs. In its most recent quarterly appraisal of the stimulus act, the CBO said the stimulus lowered the unemployment rate by between 0.7 and 1.8 percentage points during the quarter ending in June, decreasing the number of unemployed by between 1.4 million and 3.3 million. 3.3 million is pretty close to Obama's promise to create 3.5 million jobs by the end of the year.
On March 8, 2010 CBO Director Douglas Elementary spoke at a conference to the National Association for Business Economics (NABE) regarding, among other things, the impact of the stimulus law on the economy. During the session, Elementary stated specifically that his team’s estimates do not measure real-world outputs (just inputs), that they do not serve as an independent check on its success or failure, and that if the stimulus had not created jobs the CBO's figures would not reflect that fact.
Of the nation’s fastest growing occupations, the only one that pays above the May 2009 median wage of $15.95 per hour, is that of a registered nurse. They make, on average, $30.65 per hour.
All the other occupations most readily available not only pay below the median wage, but oftentimes are hovering just above the minimum wage of $7.25 per hour.
Originally posted by atlguy
The stimulus that was granted to banks and corporations was a complete joke and nothing more than a freebie to the fatcat executives. If the government actually cared a bit about fixing, or addressing the ills of the economy, they would have done something that benefited consumers and not corporations.
Put money in the pockets of the people that spend it, not the banks that are hoarding it.
A prime example of something that would have had a drastic and immediate effect is instead of giving the money to the banks with no strings attached - essentially saying "Thanks for giving money to people that you shouldn't have! In exchange for your stupid and greedy lending policies, have this wad of cash!" - they should have looked at the American consumer's debt.
If you qualified for this stimulus-derived debt relief, your debt would be decreased (forgiven) by a percentage, or entirely, but your credit would be shot for 7 years. Much the same as a bankruptcy, but without padding the pockets of lawyers and tying up the courts in the process and without all of the Republican-mandated strings.
IMMEDIATELY, disposable income would have skyrocketed across the board, and it would have actually been CHEAPER than what was given to the banks. More disposable income = more spending = more production demands = more tax revenue = more productivity.
Originally posted by Vitchilo
Insanity... doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results...
Great idea there... let's have a 2.4 + trillion $ deficit!
Paul Krugman was on CNBC yesterday calling for more stimulus. He wants to give Congress the ability to spend another $800B in an effort to get the economy going again.
This guy is nuts. A 800B$ ``stimulus`` bill right now would put the US 2010 deficit to around 2.5 TRILLION $... or 17% of GDP... or MORE THAN ALL THE US FEDERAL INCOME FOR THE YEAR.
Please someone put this guy in jail for promoting national economic suicide.
The stimulus funded lots of BS projects and did almost nothing.
Keynesian economic theory was given a go... IT FAILED.
Time to switch theory.
Hopefully in the future John Maynard Keynes will be as hated as Hitler.
[edit on 31-8-2010 by Vitchilo]
Originally posted by Kaytagg
reply to post by FiatLux
We're where we are because of military debts and corporate plundering of the US treasury (which INCLUDES military debts).
Now that jobs are tanking, wages continue to suck, and people are finding it impossible to get by, a thought crossed the minds of some economists: "Instead of giving money to robber barron corporations, why don't we give it to some of those poor people who are losing everything they own?" To which the media replies: DEFICITS DEFICITS DEFICITS!
Now suddenly deficits matter, and everybody is an economist, so we can't possibly spend money on helping the poor.. of course, we can still spend it on corporate plundering: See Afghan ramp up and pentagon budgets, for more information.
I no longer work over table nor do I own bank account I haven’t paid income tax in 7 years.