Stimulus jobs certainly do exist

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by gales0678

10% chuck , you are being very conservative

well i am an Ultra con according to Obama's swimfan.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by gales0678

why not dusburse the $ to the american people know riot , we need help

what are they waiting for

Guess that immediate huge middle class tax cut just didn't mean anything to you, huh?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Danzig

http://money.cnn.com/2009/10/30/news...ated/index.htm


i found this article, from dec 1...


The largest stimulus program in the nation's history has created or saved just over 640,000 jobs, the Obama administration said Friday.

Based on $159 billion in spending from the $787 billion recovery package, the tally is the first broad, concrete look at the stimulus program's impact on the economy. The numbers are drawn from 57,000 reports from state and local recipients and include as many as 30,000 jobs from private companies.

that's a pretty good amount isn't it?



til you do the math.



Friday's numbers were quickly used by both Democrats and Republicans to further their arguments about the value of stimulus. Each job cost $248,000 to create.


i added the money left to be spent, and then subtracted jobs created thus far. i come up with $125k per job left to be created. awesome.

When "jobs saved" is used just disregard the number. It is a made up number. There is no accurate means of determining "jobs saved".

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Riot

Guess that immediate huge middle class tax cut just didn't mean anything to you, huh?

lmao

[gales0678]

Originally Posted by Riot

Guess that immediate huge middle class tax cut just didn't mean anything to you, huh?

how can you have a tax cut when you have no income ? can you explain that one?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

When "jobs saved" is used just disregard the number. It is a made up number. For the hundredth time there is no accurate means of determining "jobs saved".

just think if it wasn't included. $ per created job would be even higher.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

Guess that immediate huge middle class tax cut just didn't mean anything to you, huh?

LOL

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Danzig

just think if it wasn't included. $ per created job would be even higher.

It is a joke that they continue to use "jobs saved". It is propoganda, plain and simple.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Yeah spin. right. It wasnt me who started this petty thread. .

Yeah, you poor thing, you were forced to come post on this thread and throw insults at me.

Living under Obama is hell!

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

Yeah, you poor thing, you were forced to come post on this thread and throw insults at me.

Living under Obama is hell!

Saying you took the low road is hardly "throwing insults".

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

http://money.cnn.com/2009/10/30/news...ated/index.htm

i added the money left to be spent, and then subtracted jobs created thus far. i come up with $125k per job left to be created. awesome.

I don't understand the point of that? Wouldn't it make more sense to take the funds spent to date, subtract the necessary administrative costs, then take the remainding fund amount and divide by the number of actual jobs created? (reality rather than future guesstimation)

And as only about 1/4 of the funds were spent by then, just keep doing that every quarter over the several-year life of the stimulus disbursement, to get a more accurate cost per real job created?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Riot

I don't understand the point of that? Wouldn't it make more sense to take the funds spent to date, subtract the necessary administrative costs, then take the remainding fund amount and divide by the number of actual jobs created? (reality rather than future guesstimation)

And as only about 1/4 of the funds were spent by then, just keep doing that every quarter over the several-year life of the stimulus disbursement, to get a more accurate cost per real job created?

i took the total amount of jobs they expect to create, and subtracted the jobs already created. i divided the money left to be spent by the number of jobs expected to be made.

the article already did money spent thus far divided by jobs created thus far. that's the $200-odd k per job figure given.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Saying you took the low road is hardly "throwing insults".

LOL - thanks for proving my point

Saying nothing about me, but keeping to the stimulus, would be even less so, hum?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i took the total amount of jobs they expect to create, and subtracted the jobs already created. i divided the money left to be spent by the number of jobs expected to be made.

the article already did money spent thus far divided by jobs created thus far. that's the $200-odd k per job figure given.

Yeah, but I'd fine-tune it using only real monies and real jobs (not "expected" or "saved")

First-quarter start-up I can cut some slack to for necessary administrative (although you don't have to, you can include the entire costs of the program).

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by Riot

Yeah, but I'd fine-tune it using only real monies and real jobs (not "expected" or "saved")

First-quarter start-up I can cut some slack to for necessary administrative (although you don't have to, you can include the entire costs of the program).

Gubomint grew 60% last year! ADMINistrative costs....what a crock!

[Riot]

Originally Posted by gales0678

how can you have a tax cut when you have no income ? can you explain that one?

So you are saying you'd rather Obama took the stimulus money and disbursed it to the currently unemployed? Or just cut a check to everyone?

Or are you in the camp that you'd rather have had nothing be done by either Bush or Obama, and that we'd be in a depression right now?

[randallscott35]

Originally Posted by Riot

Maybe have a 40 to 1 ratio? We'd definitely have 100 more people still unemployed in Lexington. Rather than now employed in well-paying jobs that get them off the unemployment rolls.

Yeah, that's worthy of disparagement!



A year plus, with 1/3 of them permanent hires. Probably better we didn't have these stimulus jobs available at all, right?

You guys are hilarious.

What you fail to recognize is the long term costs of programs like these. So it's easy for you to say, 100 more jobs, let's do cartwheels while we bankrupt our future generations with big government. Whoopdey do.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

LOL - thanks for proving my point

Saying nothing about me, but keeping to the stimulus, would be even less so, hum?

I didnt say anything "about" you. Your point was simplistic and petty. That is the low road. If that is too much "criticism" for you, perhaps you should refrain from posting with the adults.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Riot

Yeah, but I'd fine-tune it using only real monies and real jobs (not "expected" or "saved")

First-quarter start-up I can cut some slack to for necessary administrative (although you don't have to, you can include the entire costs of the program).

problem is, if they only used the actual jobs that were created, the cost per job would be even higher. so, i can understand why they'd push to have as high a job number as possible.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by randallscott35

What you fail to recognize is the long term costs of programs like these. So it's easy for you to say, 100 more jobs, let's do cartwheels while we bankrupt our future generations with big government. Whoopdey do.

No, I don't fail to recognize that at all. We had been teetering on the brink of depression for two years. Bush tried to do nothing, but then en the end had to.

There are consequences to doing nothing, too. You can't fail to recognize that. Nearly all major economists have said since that would have been the far worse route, we'd be in a definitive depression right now.