[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

Tax cuts have never produced jobs in the short term., unless you have data that would suggest otherwise...cite please.

I never stated they would. They do how ever save people money and keeps money in the pocket of the taxpayer. If you think other wise please tell me how I am wrong on that.

I would urge you to take the time to look at the CBO analysis of the bill in its present form ...nearly 2/3 of the funds will be expended in 18 months and potentially creating more than 3 million jobs..there are no guarantees, economics is not an exact science. Much of the rest is to ensure longer term job stability.

Perhaps you have other objective data....cite please!

How does citation work out for ya?

Fact Check . org

FACT CHECK: Will stimulus create more than 3 million jobs like Democrats say? Maybe not
By ALAN FRAM , Associated Press

WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama and congressional Democrats say it nearly every day: Their huge economic stimulus package must be rushed to passage because it will create or save 3 million to 4 million jobs.

In fact, those figures are uncertain enough that even some economists who produced them are basically saying: We gave it our best shot.

"The models are based on historic experience," said Mark Zandi, referring to formulas he and other economists use to predict economic behavior. "And we're outside anything we've experienced historically. We're completely in a world we don't understand and know."

Zandi is chief economist at Moody's Economy.com of West Chester, Pa. His projection last week that the House-passed stimulus measure would create 3 million jobs by the end of 2010 — scaled down from a 4 million estimate he made days earlier — have been cited repeatedly by Democrats as justification for the $819 billion legislation.

"Yes, there's a high level of uncertainty," said Zandi, a Democrat who advised Republican presidential candidate John McCain last year. "But my estimates are as good as you're going to get, and they're good enough to be useful in trying to evaluate whether we should do this or not."

Democrats also frequently cite an early January estimate by two economists working for Obama. Christina Romer and Jared Bernstein, now top White House economic advisers, said a plan roughly similar to the House-passed version would yield 3.3 million to 4.1 million jobs by late 2010 that wouldn't otherwise exist — but added a catch.

"There is considerable uncertainty in our estimates," their report said, warning that the package's impact on the economy and job creation "are hard to estimate precisely."

Separately, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office — lawmakers' official fiscal analyst — estimates that by the end of 2010, the House bill would mean 1.2 million to 3.6 million additional jobs.

The economists' caution highlights the difficulty of gauging how the stimulus would affect an ailing but still huge $14 trillion economy that is shedding 500,000 jobs a month.

There's little doubt the measure — which could grow to $900 billion when the Senate completes its version soon — would help ease unemployment from its sheer size alone. The question is: By how much?

To answer that, economists generally use a two-step process.

First they project how much the legislation would make the economy grow. Then they predict how many jobs that growth would create.

The second part is less complicated because economists tend to rely on rules of thumb. The White House, for example, assumed that each 1 percent increase in the economy's size would produce 1 million jobs.

The initial calculation — how much will the stimulus make the economy grow — is tougher. To make it, economists rely on a mix of facts and assumptions.

They know how much money the House bill contains: $30 billion for road construction, $87 billion to help states pay for Medicaid, $145 billion for $500-per-worker tax breaks, and other components.

From there, though, they make educated guesses, based partly on economic data compiled over many decades.

How quickly will federal agencies spend their stimulus money? Will state and local governments use their shares to avoid firing workers, provide services, cut taxes or as nest eggs? When will people receive tax cuts, and will they spend or save them? How much economic growth does a dollar spent on road-building produce, compared to a dollar used to extend unemployment benefits?

In many instances, economists have slightly different answers, which translate to bigger differences when they produce their job estimates.

"One of the biggest problems for these models is, are you drawing the right conclusions from the past" about future behavior, said Nigel Gault, chief U.S. economist for Global Insight of Lexington, Mass. "Or are there ways in which things have changed in the world?"

Benefit payments, such as aid to the poor, and tax cuts can move quickly to people. Government purchases of goods and services can take longer, especially construction projects which can take years to complete.

But generally, economists consider government spending more reliable than tax cuts for creating jobs. That's because people and businesses sometimes save part or all of their tax cuts instead of spending them, especially if money is tight.

Underscoring how delicate these projections are, on Jan. 21 Zandi predicted the House bill would create 4 million jobs, based on assumptions that all its money would be spent by the end of 2010.

Days later, the Congressional Budget Office projected that more than one-third of the bill's spending and tax cuts would not occur until after 2010. In response, Zandi dropped his job creation estimate to 3 million.

The economists' caution highlights the difficulty of gauging how the stimulus would affect an ailing but still huge $14 trillion economy that is shedding 500,000 jobs a month.

There's little doubt the measure — which could grow to $900 billion when the Senate completes its version soon — would help ease unemployment from its sheer size alone. The question is: By how much?

To answer that, economists generally use a two-step process.

First they project how much the legislation would make the economy grow. Then they predict how many jobs that growth would create.

The second part is less complicated because economists tend to rely on rules of thumb. The White House, for example, assumed that each 1 percent increase in the economy's size would produce 1 million jobs.

The initial calculation — how much will the stimulus make the economy grow — is tougher. To make it, economists rely on a mix of facts and assumptions.

They know how much money the House bill contains: $30 billion for road construction, $87 billion to help states pay for Medicaid, $145 billion for $500-per-worker tax breaks, and other components.

From there, though, they make educated guesses, based partly on economic data compiled over many decades.

How quickly will federal agencies spend their stimulus money? Will state and local governments use their shares to avoid firing workers, provide services, cut taxes or as nest eggs? When will people receive tax cuts, and will they spend or save them? How much economic growth does a dollar spent on road-building produce, compared to a dollar used to extend unemployment benefits?

In many instances, economists have slightly different answers, which translate to bigger differences when they produce their job estimates.

"One of the biggest problems for these models is, are you drawing the right conclusions from the past" about future behavior, said Nigel Gault, chief U.S. economist for Global Insight of Lexington, Mass. "Or are there ways in which things have changed in the world?"

Benefit payments, such as aid to the poor, and tax cuts can move quickly to people. Government purchases of goods and services can take longer, especially construction projects which can take years to complete.

But generally, economists consider government spending more reliable than tax cuts for creating jobs. That's because people and businesses sometimes save part or all of their tax cuts instead of spending them, especially if money is tight.

Underscoring how delicate these projections are, on Jan. 21 Zandi predicted the House bill would create 4 million jobs, based on assumptions that all its money would be spent by the end of 2010.

Days later, the Congressional Budget Office projected that more than one-third of the bill's spending and tax cuts would not occur until after 2010. In response, Zandi dropped his job creation estimate to 3 million.

http://www.startribune.com/politics/38809947.html

As this guy said:

Last update: February 2, 2009 - 12:28 PM
Featured comment

in Other Words
It's all BS. The great majority of money will just move EXISTING jobs from the private to public sector. Unions are paid off,trial lawyers … read more are paid off, Democratic states get paid off.Certainly a few jobs may result fron the spending, but not until year 2013 when The Obama will be the one unemployed.