The Cellar - The New Bailout

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)

- Politics (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=5)

- - The New Bailout (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=19517)

Quote:

Originally Posted by glatt (Post 619054)

GM couldn't find a buyer for Saab, so they are shutting it down.

But wait! There's a last minute deal. GM just reached a deal with exotic car maker Spyker and the Swedish government to unload Saab. Saab's not dead yet, and being owned by an exotic car maker may give it a much needed boost.

Bumpity bump... not sure yet how to take this. Its probably bunk, but ...

Quote:

Pelosi: Without Obama's Stimulus, Unemployment Would Now Be 15%
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D.-Calif.) said at her press briefing Thursday that if the stimulus had not been enacted the unemployment rate would now be 15 percent.

"I think it’s really important to know that President Obama was a job creator from day one," Pelosi said at her Thursday briefing. "Now, was the ditch that we were in so deep that when you’re talking to people and they still don’t have a job, that that’s any consolation to them? No.

“But I’ll tell you this,” said Pelosi, “if President Obama and the House congressional Democrats had not acted, we would be at 15 percent unemployment. Again, no consolation to those without a job, but an important point to make."

A report published by the CBO in August estimated that in the fourth quarter of 2011, the stimulus signed by President Obama in 2009 would have the impact of reducing the national unemployment rate between 0.3 points to 1.1 points from what it otherwise would have been. The report also said that although CBO initially estimated that the stimulus would cost $787 billion, CBO had subsequently increased its estimated cost to $825 billion.

According to the CBO report, 600,000 to 2 million people have jobs as of now that were "created or retained" because of the $825 billion stimulus. If the maximum number of 2 million is accepted, that works out to a cost of $412,500 per job. If the minimum number of 600,000 is accepted, that works out to a cost of $1,375,000 per job.

Help me out here people. What am I missing?

Maybe it was this ...
Link

Your link led me to something called the "Wonk Blog." When I tried to click on its content, the site wouldn't let me do anything. Maybe you have to subscribe?

That CBO report came out in 2010, so its sort of old news. Although I don't see why it would lie since the CBO is non partisan.

Nancy Pelosi, on the other hand, is running for re-election. I'd take the word of any politician running for office with a gazillion grains of salt.

Wonkblog is the Washington Post editorial page.

The link takes you to an article that goes over 9 different assessments of the stimulus and its benefits.

OK, I tried it tonight, and now it works. This morning I either had gremlins in my computer or quite possibly my brain.

That's a lot of info there and I just glanced through it. The author says 6 out of 9 studies show that the stimulus was effective. But he also notes that economists seem to have some quarrels with each other over which economic model to use or something.

Off topic but this finding interested me

Quote:

Aid to low-income people and infrastructure spending showed very positive impacts.

So, why does Congress want to throw low income Americans out to be food for the wolves again?

Anyhow. I didn't see anything that explained the incredible money to job ratio that you highlighted in your post. But I didn't read all nine studies - maybe buried away somewhere in one of them?

Say an average American made $40,000/year. At those costs, you could just directly give an unemployed worker that sum for anywhere from 10 - 34 years. :eek:

But if you looked at it like each worker has been placed in a $40,000/year job that s/he is going to keep for 20 years, get periodic pay increases, and pay taxes on - well then the numbers might make more sense.

I'm not much help, am I? :confused:

UT or tw needs to give you a reply.

no the original post based that jobs created # off the total amount of the stimulus when only part of it was for job creation. Thats what I got from the second link anyway.

It's like the "$16 muffins".

zactly ... I think.
Shouldn't this be a relatively easy figure to guesstimate?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey (Post 770312)

It's like the "$16 muffins".

That report was false.

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/10...n_never_e.html

Quote:

Originally Posted by classicman (Post 770133)

Bumpity bump... not sure yet how to take this. Its probably bunk, but ...

Help me out here people. What am I missing?

Not bunk. The supposed Obama-Pelosi-Reid "Stimulus" was a boondoggled failure.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 772207)

That report was false.

Of course. That was my point.

Quote:

Twelve executives at the firms received roughly $35.4 million in total salary and bonuses in 2009 and 2010. Fannie CEO Michael J. Williams received about $9.3 million for the two years. Freddie CEO Edward Haldeman Jr. was paid $7.8 million for that stretch.

The government rescued Washington-based Fannie and McLean, Virginia-based Freddie three years ago after they nearly folded because of big losses on risky mortgages they purchased. Taxpayers have spent about $170 billion to rescue the two firms, the most expensive bailout of the 2008 financial crisis.

The government estimates the bailout could reach up to $220 billion through 2014.

"These lavish compensation packages and bonuses are unfair, unreasonable and unjust to the taxpayers whose assistance is the only thing keeping Fannie and Freddie afloat," said Rep. Spencer Bachus, chairman of the House committee.

Then ....

Quote:

Congress is seeking to end the practice of paying million-dollar bonuses to executives at government-controlled mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

The House Financial Services Committee approved legislation Tuesday that would suspend tens of millions in Fannie and Freddie executive compensation packages, stop future bonuses and align their salaries with other federal employees who make much less. The vote was 52-4, with strong support from both parties.

So glad this shit was stopped. How long will it take the senate to bring this to the floor?
:vomit:

Quote:

Originally Posted by classicman (Post 773513)

So glad this shit was stopped. How long will it take the senate to bring this to the floor?

Never.