The package boosted the economy by up to 3.5 percent and lowered the unemployment rate by up to 2.1 percent during that period, CBO said. The package is likely to have the greatest impact this year, according to CBO. It is expected to boost GDP by between 1.4 percent and 4 percent and bring down the unemployment rate by between 0.7 percent and 1.8 percent in 2010, higher figures than last year when many of its programs were being set up. The impact is expected to trail off over the next two years.
Direct purchasing of goods and services by the federal government and states have been the most effective provision of the act, CBO said. Among the least effective: a tax credit for first-time homebuyers and a tax cut for the wealthy.
but… but… TYRANNY, SOCIALISM!!!!
LOL. I’m quite sure that all these jobs went to black people, ACORN, and illegal Mexican abortion doctors, so Tea Baggers will still oppose the stimulus.
-
But you must remember, the GOP only recognizes CBO findings when it proves their point.
-
“But you must remember, the GOP only recognizes CBO findings when it proves their point. ”
Yeah that goes both ways, pal. I haven’t seen many liberals touting any CBO figures before this.
Now let’s look at the claim being made here, and counter it with some pesky facts.
“up tp” 2.1 million jobs added in Q4 of 2009.
Which translates to, jobs added by the Stimulus in Q4 2009 did not excede 2.1 million.
You know what else doesn’t excede 2.1 million? 1, 2, 3, etc.
This is used car salesmen stuff. C’mon.
If the CBO findings were really so great, why the hedge with “up to”?
Maybe it’s because the CBO actually said this:
“…CBO estimates that in the fourth quarter of calendar year 2009, ARRA added between 1.0 million and 2.1 million to the number of workers employed in the United States…”
So, beside obviously wanting to brag up the largest number, why are we getting this “up to” crap?
You guys know damn well that if the loyal opposition were trying to pass figures that had a margin of error to the tune of 500,000 that you would laugh us out of the room. And rightfully so.
Now, is 1 million jobs saved in a quarter something positive? Certainly.
However, since I don’t see any metrics listed on how that figure was reached, I have to admit I am a bit suspicious as to the accuracy. Did the CBO use the White House figures that include counties that don’t exist? Seasonal work? Jobs that lasted a week—or a day? Who knows?
Nice try, though. And understandably so. After all, November is drawing near, and you all have but a short time to convince the American people that our $780,000,000,000 investment wasn’t a complete waste.
Especially when you are now talking about another round of it.
-
So, we have an economy that had shed 8.4 million jobs since the start of the recession in December of 2007. We now have a report from the CBO who has acted as an accurate and impartial arbiter of the impact of legislation for the past 35 years that shows we boosted gross domestic product by 1.4 to 4 percentage points and lowered the unemployment rate by 0.7 to 1.8 percentage points and grew the economy between 1.5 to 3.5 percentage points, and added up to 2.1 million jobs in 2009.
You have your skepticism backing you up.
Well…you certainly have a valid argument. :rollseyes:
Care to explain why IHS Global Insight, Macroeconomic Advisers and Moody’s Economy.com are all wrong as well?
They all estimate that the bill has added 1.6 million to 1.8 million jobs so far and that its ultimate impact will be roughly 2.5 million jobs.
Please explain…
(1) explain why the commercial forecasters are incorrect in their assessments.
(2) why the CBO is similarly misguided.
(3) why the preferred conservative models at World Net Daily, and Redstate.com have far superior predictive power.Until that occurs, I’ll stick with the mainstream….
-
“However, since I don’t see any metrics listed on how that figure was reached, I have to admit I am a bit suspicious as to the accuracy. Did the CBO use the White House figures that include counties that don’t exist? Seasonal work? Jobs that lasted a week—or a day? Who knows?”
Now that I have some time, I did what you obviously never did—follow-up research.
It seems that I was right to question the CBO’s methodology. Let’s look at what they have admitted to using to come up with its figures.
[W]e don’t think one can learn much from watching the evolution of particular components of GDP [gross domestic product] over the last few quarters about the effects of the stimulus … so we fall back on repeating the sort of analysis we did before. And we tried to be very explicit about it that it is essentially repeating the same exercise we did rather than an independent check on it.
Which translates to…
“Since we couldn’t come up with any verifiable data to use, we went with the numbers we originally estimated before the bill even passed, which are, of course, unverifiable.”
And how did the CBO come up with its estimated numbers in the first place? It used the highest possible multipliers it could, rather than a mid-point estimate. Of course, such multipliers are also unverifiable.
So please, by all means, keep towing this “Mission Accomplished” banner all the way to November. I have a feeling there will still be millions upon millions of unemployed Americans ready to tell you and yours how full of shit you all are. Hopefully they are registered and likely voters.
-
That a boy. Keep up the old and tired GOPher talking points. When you take your “facts” from “conservative” sources, of course, that is what you will believe. After all you have tried desperately to refute, we are still left with the fact that the stimulus prevented a second Great Depression and saved this country from even more problems that we still have to deal with. No one claims the stimulus solved every economic problem we have, but the fact is that we would be in much worse shape had President Obama not acted quickly and, as it turns out, efficiently.
I’ll side with the Washington Times, the Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg, and even former McCain economic adviser Mark Zandi, who remarked, “the stimulus did what it was supposed to do: short-circuit the recession and spur recovery.”
Keep those hands over those ears; that helps.
-
That’s right. Attack the messenger instead of addressing the message.
The methodology used by the CBO was to, in the absence of actual data, fall back on its predictions. And its predictions were based on high-ranging multipliers, rather than mid-level multipliers.
You can snivel about where that information came from all you want. It isn’t going to change the facts that it happened.
And feel free to offer an alternative to the answers I have given that you feel are unacceptable. Weeks ago I asked about the methodology used by the CBO to come up with its figures. Rather than giving an actual answer, you continue to resort to “well I will listen to so-and-so.”
So I ask again. How did the CBO come up with its figures for job creation? I have given you an answer. You refuse to accept it. So now let’s hear your answer.
-
Since you don’t believe my claims, which are supported by “conservative” sources, maybe you will trust the CBO?
Here is the methodology the CBO says it used. It is in the Preface in case you’d like to read it yourself.
It also provides CBO’s estimates of ARRA’s overall impact on employment and economic output in the last quarter of calendar year 2009. Those estimates—which CBO considers more comprehensive than the recipients’ reports—are based on evidence from similar policies enacted in the past and various economic models.
It says right there that their estimates were not based on any current, verifiable date, but were generated based on the effectiveness of PAST policies and of PAST models.
Which just happens to be pretty much EXACTLY what my shitty conservative sources says it did.
So, since I have pointed this out to you from the very CBO report on which you are basing your entire argument, I am fairly sure this is checkmate.
Good game.
-
The CBO “estimates” are not an analysis of what the stimulus actually did but rather what some predicted it would do. Hence the word “estimate” or in some cases “projections”.
Where did they get those predictions? The multipliers we keep hearing about came from empirical estimates from earlier periods. I think they always have.
Developing some bogus counterfactuals like you’re doing to test fiscal stimulus is difficult and nobody on either side should claim strong empirical verification. But that doesn’t mean the multipliers the CBO is using were pulled out of a hat either.
I have to admit a certain frustration with these he-said-she-said posts. There is no learning in them. It’s all about already knowing the answer and looking for data to justify it. But if you already know the answer, well then you’re perfect and there’s nothing to learn. All knowledge has been obtained, every answer is known. Still, we’ve just come through the worst recession in decades, with first real, global financial crisis in the modern era. You might think that this would generate a plethora of interesting questions: If the stimulus has a positive benefit, should we have borrowed more? If so, how much? What represents the reasonable limit of such a program? How do we demonstrate that?
How many fascinating questions are begging some analysis and insight?
Instead you’re more interested in an ideological debate trying to prove the President wrong on anything and everything. The truth is, that there is a political mind bent in this country right now, that doesn’t want anything this President does or attempts to do, to succeed. It must stick mightily in your craw that the stimulus kept us and by extension, the rest of the planet, from a financial Depression. That being said it also looks like the 50% of tax breaks in the recovery plan didn’t do very much. Probably would have done better if it wasn’t full of so much “Republican ideology” (i.e. tax breaks).
-
“The CBO “estimates” are not an analysis of what the stimulus actually did but rather what some predicted it would do. Hence the word “estimate” or in some cases “projections”.”
Funny how none of those words made it into your original post. Perhaps you should have entitled this “CBO estimates that its original projections, which were based on previous models and policies, were correct.”
But you didn’t. Instead you held up this worthless CBO report full of estimates based on projections instead of facts, as if it were proof of this “Mission Accomplished” meme you folks are trying to spread before November. You didn’t reaffirm this as a report on previous estimates. You put it up as a report of actual facts of what took place in the 4th quarter of 2009. And it is simply not that.
If you want to brag up solid numbers like you have done, you need to be prepared to defend the methodology used to generate them. If you want to defend a methodology that uses estimates and projections, then drop the hard figures and tell the truth.
The truth would go something like this….
“We don’t know how many jobs the Stimulus has saved or created, nor do we know if it actually averted an economic meltdown. What we do know is that the Stimulus did save and create some jobs, and did potentially assist in some of the marginal economic recovery we have seen thus far. To what extend it did either is simply unverifiable.”
You link to something that resembles that and you won’t hear a peep from me.
-
CBO estimates that total authorized costs in the first two categories probably exceed $115 billion over the 2010-2019 period, as detailed below.1 We do not have an estimate of the potential costs of authorizations in the third category.
I guess not all CBO stories are created equal around these parts.
-
Ummm…about those CBO reports….
Douglas Elmendorf, the head of the Congressional Budget Office, has stated plainly 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. So no, sorry, try again: The CBO’s updates do not actually confirm whether or not the stimulus is creating jobs.
So looks like your headline should read, “American Recovery and Reinvestment Act spent money for up to 2.1 million jobs in Q4 of 2009, so says the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office”
-
When do estimates measure real-world outputs? I can’t think of any “estimate” that who would measure real-world outputs. Aren’t real-world outputs looked at in hindsite months after that quarter had ended?
Here I’ll ammend it so you will stop holding your breath and throwing a tantrum…
“American Recovery and Reinvestment Act added up to 2.1 million jobs in Q4 of 2009, so estimated the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office.”
Wait…what did the Congressional Budget Office say in a new analysis on Tuesday?
http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/impact-stimulus-bigger-projected-cbo-says/
The analysis said the gross domestic product, the measure of the country’s economy, was between 1.7 and 4.2 percent higher than it would otherwise have been without the $862 billion program. As for unemployment, even though the rate hovered around 10 percent during the quarter, CBO said that could have been as high as 11.5 percent without the stimulus.
The CBO admits its calculations are “an estimate of what is going on, not an actual count of specific jobs created.”
Since you wont believe this either, please continue to hold your breath and beat your fists against the wall.
-
Why would I have a problem believing the CBO only gives estimates when I am the one who originally introduced that fact into this discussion?
-
I don’t believe the CBO ever touted their estimates as FACT, nor did I ever say they were FACTS.
Regardless….chew on this.
A new Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report estimates that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) had preserved or created between 1.2 million and 2.8 million jobs as of March. In other words, there were between 1.2 million and 2.8 million more jobs in the economy in March than there would have been without ARRA. This estimate, by Congress’ non-partisan economic and budget analysts, is more comprehensive than the 682,000 jobs that ARRA recipients reported in late April, CBO explains.
Bottom line…I’ll agree that the ARRA was sometimes messy and inefficient.
The difference here is that you will never admit that the stimulus had any measurable positive impact on economic growth and employment, or that it reduced slack in the labor market, or quite possibly kept our economy from going over a cliff.
-
Oh no. You never said they were “facts.” You just used them to brag up the effects of the Stimulus, and would have been perfectly fine with their estimates being considered as fact had I not called you on it.
No, you didn’t say they were facts in your original post. Then again, you never said they were estimates, either, as you made reference to “all those jobs.”
“The difference here is that you will never admit that the stimulus had any measurable positive impact on economic growth and employment, or that it reduced slack in the labor market, or quite possibly kept our economy from going over a cliff.”
I am fine with admitting the stimulus created and saved jobs. For example, I admit that it created jobs in New Hampshire. But the problem was never with admitting jobs were saved or created. The problem has always been how many.
The White House “estimates” it saved 12,000 jobs in New Hampshire. Now, granted, an estimate is not an exact number. So how much was that estimate off?
Recovery.org says it is off by the tune of 12,500. That’s right. Recovery,org “estimates” that a total of 1,431 jobs have been created in NH. That’s some pretty shitty estimating by the White House, if you ask me.
NH recieved about $772,000,000 to create those 1,431 jobs. That works out to about $539,248 per job. That is beyond “messy and inefficient.”
I can also admit that the Stimulus did “quite possibly keep our economy from going over a cliff.” However, since there is no verifiable proof of that, I am not going to give outright credit for it. Again, there is a difference. I can admit that it possibly did. I have yet to see you, or any other proponent of the Stimulus admit that it possibly didn’t. Instead, you toss around CBO figures, without mentioning they are “estimates” until the fact that they are “estimates” comes to light, in which the tune gets changed to no system of measuring such things is perfect, blah blah blah.
Bottom line is that we are finding out that these CBO estimates for things like the effects of the Stimulus and savings of health care legislation are not really worth much as a sufficient tool for developing or defending policy.
-
Anyone that believes the CBO after their lousy record of underestimating costs of government programs is an idiot. Also the only way unemployment was reduced by over 2% (which it wasn’t; they are continually “surprised” by their estimates being way wrong) was by adding temporary government employees. Surely some of you aren’t this stupid.
Recent Comments
 | Hucking Fypocrites on My Illegal Immigration Solution |
 | Rutherford on My Illegal Immigration Solution |
| Rutherford on This is quite the eye opener. |
| Hucking Fypocrites on My Illegal Immigration Solution |
 | Curator on This is quite the eye opener. |
Give Some Back
17 comments
Comments feed for this article
Trackback link: http://www.political-discourse.com/2010/02/24/american-recovery-and-reinvestment-act-added-up-to-2-1-million-jobs-in-q4-of-2009-so-says-the-non-partisan-congressional-budget-office/trackback/