PEBO Provides Stimulus Details on Where and When the Jobs Will Be

"Protect the Vulnerable" funding definition.

It appears to be program funding:
"Temporary programs to protect the most vulnerable from the deep recession, including increases in food stamps and expansions of unemployment insurance."

Table 2 suggests that it is the Second largest job driver at 549,000. These programs might be worth extending but I cant see that they would be very likely to drive huge job gains. A large bulk of the income would go to either rent or mortgage and car expense. Paying down revolving credit debt. That kind of thing doesnt drive consumption based expansion. You'd sustain some level of low end retail activity but I think the claimed jobs are completely disproportionate.

One other thing- Romer's report says "We have assumed a package just slightly over the $775 billion currently under discussion". How does Obama get to the the "trillion dollar deficits for several years" that he has spoke of? Spending 775B in Yr1 doesnt mean you get over a trillion in Yr1, Yr2 and Yr3. Is Obama planning large program not mentioned here?

"Those tax breaks came early in Bush's 1st term, and there have been very little to no jobs created from it. In fact we are losing jobs now and those tax breaks are still in place."

totally wrong.

Here are the January employment stats for the past 10 years for Civilian employment (numbers in 1000's):
Year Empl
1998 137095
1999 139003
2000 142267
2001 143800
2002 143883
2003 145937
2004 146842
2005 148005
2006 150148
2007 153012
2008 153873

You can see that there are more than 10M more people employed than when Bush took office.

Aldo worth considering is revenue collection by year. As you can see much more revenue is collected under Bush than under Clinton, and all the individual recent years are now higher too.
1992 1,091,328
1993 1,154,471
1994 1,258,721
1995 1,351,932
1996 1,453,177
1997 1,579,423
1998 1,721,955
1999 1,827,645
2000 2,025,457
2001 1,991,426
2002 1,853,395
2003 1,782,532
2004 1,880,279
2005 2,153,859
2006 2,407,254
2007 2,568,239

"Is a society based on gross consumerism as promulgatged by the United States sustainable on this planet? Perhaps not, but at least the Obama steps are in the right direction..."

Do you understand what the term stimulus means? He want to spend trillions building things and have people buy things that they normally wouldnt.

Is a society based on gross consumerism as promulgatged by the United States sustainable on this planet?

Perhaps not, but at least the Obama steps are in the right direction - towards more sustainable energy, more efficient power grids, better vehicles, more power efficient homes and buildings, protecting our river and water systems . . . and so on.

Those are things worth investing in for both private sector and public sector.

Go for it.

Well Said Vet

Most of the economic problems lie directly with the greed of the American people at all income levels and that I got to have it now mentality…… The EVIL Bush Tax cuts, most idiots don’t even know what they actually were/are, and how they actually benefited them… the lemmings just keep chanting the liberal spin... I think the last eight years have been GREAT.... of course I actually believe in working, not sitting on my a.., waiting for a Government handouts, don’t live above my means, didn’t buy a car or house I couldn’t afford. If BO wants to give $1000.00 of my tax dollars back… that’s just fine. But I will pay bills or save it before I waste it on the overprice TV's, of plastic Made in China junk Walmart sells.

I especially like the part about part about not sitting on my ass and waiting for a gov. check. Unfortunately after all these jobs have been created and filled there will still be just as many lazy freeloaders in the great entitlement society created by the liberal democrats. they have been ont the take for so long they won't work because they haven't had to.

Posted by: Vet1973 | Jan 10, 2009 3:03:31 PM

How does the stock market 'crash'? Well, the people with a lot of shares start selling them. Why? To make as much money as possible.

Who loses? Everybody else who had only their pitiful little amount of shares and didn't see what the big shareholders were about to do.

The result? The large stockholders get rich by selling at the top of the market. The rest of the population pays as their stocks approach worthlessness.

Don't kid yourselves, the people who crashed the market made off like thieves.

The rest are left to point fingers on here and blame it on their favorite scapegoats.

Wonder how many people actually read the analysis?

Having read the 14 pages, these are two observation I've have:

First, the purpose - the plan "should save or create at least 3 million jobs by the end of 2010". With unemployment of 10% looking likely, is Obama's desire to limit the damage good or bad.

If the public doesn't care, and in fact, is willing to accept themselves as part of the statistic, then Obama's concern is ill placed. If the public wants government interference, so they and their relatives don't become statistics, but it doesn't like this plan, then suggest some better ones. All the name calling just adds to the noise.

Second, the analysis projects that by November 2012 unemployment will be pretty much the same, back at 5%, with or without this Recovery Plan. That means that Obama could do nothing, ride the wave with his oratory skills, and claim economic victory as his re-election campaign slogan. That would be the most cynical, but by my reading of the analysis, politically most brilliant way to go. Of course it might mean 2-3 years of hell, for a hell of a lot of Americans.

It seems to me that his willingness to do something, at the risk of failing (because of loss of confidence by both Congress and the public), is actually a pretty gutsy thing to do.

Right now we are getting lots of ideological shouting with very few suggestions as to how to proceed. My guess is that in the end, the rich will keep getting richer...

Welcome Back, Carter.

We don't need a "stimulus".
We need a "break".

A "stimulus" is just a fancy word for the government taking our money and then spending it as they see fit, as if they're some kind of economic professionals. The government will throw some money at the automakers, so they can pay their union bills. The government will throw some money at business, as an incentive to hire more workers (whether the businesses need more workers or not). The government will throw money at infrastructure to provide jobs for road pavers, bridge builders, etc. The government will throw money at schools, federal buildings, "green" energy, or whatever other loony cause they deem worthy.

DOES ANYONE SEE WHAT'S HAPPENING?

None of these solutions offer any long-term employment, or any wealth creation, or any goods or services that have any real value.

In short, HOW IS ALL THIS PLAYING WITH FUNNY MONEY SUPPOSED TO MOVE OUR NATION FORWARD? And where is this money coming from? When they're through bilking the taxpayer, they'll simply print "fiat" money.

What businesses and consumers need is a BREAK, not a stimulus. They need capital gains tax breaks, easing of regulations, easing of tariffs and a reduction of income tax. Don't just throw money around like so many band-aids. Simply allow businesses and consumers the incentive to start hiring, working and purchasing again. Tax reduction is the incentive that is needed. THAT is the only way to spur the economy.

Of course, that will never happen. Because that requires GOVERNMENT to tighten its belt and reduce its size, and our illustrious leaders will not stand for that. THEY know what's best. THEY have all the answers. We just need to sit back and let them "fix" everything with OUR money.

Naysayers need to crawl back in their holes. The conservative right has finally lost their grip. Get over it. It's time to stand up and be an american and support the administration the voters have chosen. Constant whining isn't going to help.

As far as socialism is concerned, don't all of us benifit from these programs? Do you know someone that has retired and is recieving social security? Have you been hurt or disabled and had to use these programs? Without social programs people who can no longer work would all be living in boxes. It's not all about you!

The answere is more government. The answere is more regulation. Deregulation is what got us in this mess! When free enterprise is allowed to do what they wish, they do! The greedy will allways take. They don't care about the middle class and the poor. They care about lining thier pockets!

MadeInUSA: So right! My Democratic senator responded with a form letter prepared in anticipation of his constituents' opposition. My Republican senator, who voted for TARP, did not even give me the courtesy of a reply.

Most of the economic problems lie directly with the greed of the American people at all income levels and that I got to have it now mentality…… The EVIL Bush Tax cuts, most idiots don’t even know what they actually were/are, and how they actually benefited them… the lemmings just keep chanting the liberal spin... I think the last eight years have been GREAT.... of course I actually believe in working, not sitting on my a.., waiting for a Government handouts, don’t live above my means, didn’t buy a car or house I couldn’t afford. If BO wants to give $1000.00 of my tax dollars back… that’s just fine. But I will pay bills or save it before I waste it on the overprice TV's, of plastic Made in China junk Walmart sells.

taxed2death: We took a stand on the TARP and wrote, called and petitioned our Senators and Representatives in unprecedented numbers. It made no difference. They do not listen to us, and the only time they think of us is when they're up for election. That won't happen again for any of them for at least another two years. I agree totally with what you are saying, and it should make a difference, but I'm too realistic now to believe that it will.

Exactly how are these jobs going to be created? Can someone explain please?

A reply to Daryl:
Well, I have a somewhat different view.
When the rich gets tax cut, they tend to spend on services such as luxury vacations, partying on expensive yachts or in Four Seasons Hotels, or on a lake-front property, or a 3rd home near Colorado ski areas, all of which create service jobs that are more or less local/domestic. When the not-so-rich get tax rebates, they tend to buy things like toys for kids, extra clothes, new TVs, and daily items that are most likely made in China, which create jobs in China but not much direct impact here other than Walmart and a few other retailers. So it's not whether "trickle up" or "trickle down", but where the biggest trickle will takes place.

Troy Street wrote "True insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result." Yes, like trusting a politician (whether Democrat or Republican) with trillions more of our dollars on his word that it is necessary to avoid an "emergency." Isn't that exactly how we got into Iraq? Unless you are just as skeptical of this spending spree, which bears a striking resemblance to Obama's campaign promises prior to the meltdown, as you are about "weapons of mass destruction," you are no better than W's uncritical supporters.

I just hope that the wording in this stimulus package states that only American Citizens or those that are here legally are intitled to these jobs.

And all of these jobs will be located over the rainbow.

Daryl says: "Bush's tax cuts were for the wealthy and the corporations. Problem is the rich just bank most of it, or spend it on themselves, or use it to invest in something else that has no or very little benefits for Ameircans.."

1.) Yes, the rich bank most of it, which encourages banks to lend money to capital ventures, which in turn creates jobs, goods and services for EVERYONE.

2.) Yes, the rich spend it on themselves, and that in turn is going directly into the economy, via retail sales, travel industry activity, auto sales, home sales and anything else the rich purchase. Those purchases keep people employed. Ask any retail sales employee, auto dealer or travel agent. I'm sure they're happy to see rich people do business with them.

3.) You're being a little vague on your last point, "use it to invest in something else that has no or very little benefits for Americans..". How does ANY investment, no matter what it is, NOT benefit Americans? ANY investment at all is a benefit. If they invest their money, that means they are creating wealth, creating goods, creating a service, creating jobs and creating a tax base. EVERYONE benefits.

Please give me an example of how investment does NOT benefit people?

And while you're at it, please explain how "wealth" is supposed to "trickle up" from the poorer classes to the wealthy classes? Last time I checked, poor people were STILL unable to offer jobs to wealthy people.

On January 20th Obama will vote present. He will make a speech that will send a tingle down the legs of millions, no billions of people. The following day he will take our money. On the third day our financial problems will be resolved and the lion will lie down with the lamb. Don't worry, be happy.