(no subject)

[korean-guy-01.livejournal.com]

Should Obama really be bragging that the US Government spent & borrowed $287,333.33 for each "saved" or "created" job (as a result of the Stimulus package) as some great accomplishment? If so, can you justify why that high cost per job is worth it?

Opinion: Not worth the high cost/job if they can't justify beyond a "job now" looking glass (have some of the "saved/created" jobs resulted in termination since earlier cited?). I haven't seen sufficient commentary for additional benefits, as well as how they define saved or created.

Comments

[vnsplshr.livejournal.com]

Where'd he quote that figure?

[korean-guy-01.livejournal.com]

862,000,000,000/3,000,000 = 862,000/3 = 287,333.33

[thinkatory.livejournal.com]

Because the economy is growing. Economic growth requires investment. That's what the stimulus was, at least in part. The original draft (sans fewer tax cuts) would have created or saved more jobs.

[root-fu.livejournal.com]

I would think the economy won't grow much under conditions where numerous jobs migrate from the United States to China, India and other places with exceedingly low labor costs. It may be that stimulus isn't "saving" the economy so much as its temporarily hiding how badly the massive job exodus is negatively affecting the country.

[anosognosia.livejournal.com]

"Because the economy is growing. Economic growth requires investment."

Well of course the economy will grow if you throw money at it. The question is whether it is sustaining growth, and whether the money being thrown at it is a function of real or only relative wealth. On both of these questions, there's some reason for concern.

[reality-hammer.livejournal.com]

Economic growth is pathetic and there is zero growth in jobs.

[dwer.livejournal.com]

what is it you boot-strappers always like to say? To make money, you spend money.

Actually......

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

That's what entrepeneurs say....granted most are boot-strappers.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

He shouldn't be bragging at all, considering how much of a failure it is.

[reality-hammer.livejournal.com]

Racist!

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

- Please add your opinion (if even a short one).

- Please remove friend-lock.

Thanks, 1 hour.

[korean-guy-01.livejournal.com]

Members lock isn't in the rules, it's my default option.

[tridus.livejournal.com]

Sure. At this point what's another trillion or two of debt? It's not Americans are concerned about minor details like spending effeciency or where the money is coming from.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

Today money is coming from computers. Most of it is virtual.

And I haven't seen anyone recalling their credits to the US thus far (for now).

[verytwistedmind.livejournal.com]

"trouble with the New Deal was that it didn't spend enough"

-Obama.

So he should be bragging about how much he's spent. He's keeping true to his beliefs. If he's right, it'll pay off in spades.

[rogerdr.livejournal.com]

The difference here is that FDR didn't contract out the labor, he bulldozed whole administrations through Congress that created jobs directly. What the govt. is doing now is paying middlemen, hoping that the unions and corporations both will cooperate.

[chemchick.livejournal.com]

Would you feel more comfortable that the money was used to create jobs or used for social services such as unemployment or welfare?

[ytterbius.livejournal.com]

Your simplistic analysis would only be valid if the jobs that you're talking about about produced nothing of value. Not all of that money goes just to a paycheck for a worker. Much of it goes to the concrete, rebar, solar panels, cables, etc, that produces the physical end result that the worker was working on.

[ytterbius.livejournal.com]

Plus, a bunch of the stimulus went to tax cuts. Whatever.

[ytterbius.livejournal.com]

Your basic math is off. You should edit the post and plainly disclose that you've lost.

[rogerdr.livejournal.com]

Welcome to 2004.

Get with the template!

[reality-hammer.livejournal.com]

Remember: it would only be worse if he hadn't spent more money in two years than Bush spent in eight!

Also: the mild deficits of the Bush years, which were about to bring about the end of the world as we knew it, are sooooo different than the massive deficits under Obama, which will save the world as we know it.