PDA

View Full Version : Economics Obama Administration and GM


Jenson71
09-02-2010, 11:53 AM
I rememeber hearing on this site that a huge concern with the auto bailout was that 'once government has their hands on something, the grip only gets tighter.' Taco John's analogy was of a roof burning -- inevitably, the whole house will come down.

Of course, Taco John, as usual, missed an obvious point -- we have firefighters and roofers. It's not necessary that a fire on the roof brings the whole house down or can not be fixed.

So perhaps its time for some to realize that the auto bailout was not, afterall, the work of an anti-market socialist. GM is starting to lose it's "Government Motors" status and return to the stock market, free from the government's ownership, and back into the place where we want business to primarily be.

Look at some of the benefits that came with the bailout: GM, thousands of jobs, and dozens of suppliers (and their jobs) don't become exitinct. In fact, GM is potentially a slicker, more efficient operation than before (and yes, some jobs were lost because of that). The costs? A blow to the integrity of the non-interventionist model.

BigChiefFan
09-02-2010, 11:57 AM
Private enterprises, should be run by private entities. Federal government is their to insure our God Given, birth rights and protect our borders to insure our pursuit of happiness. Everything else they've over-stepped their boundries. No company is too big to fail. If they run their company like shit, they deserve to fail.

Brock
09-02-2010, 12:07 PM
The rumor is their IPO will be 120 dollars a share. Ha ha.

BigChiefFan
09-02-2010, 12:12 PM
The rumor is their IPO will be 120 dollars a share. Ha ha.

You're kidding? Good Lord. The rich get richer and we foot the bill. Unfuckinbelievable.

Brock
09-02-2010, 12:15 PM
You're kidding? Good Lord. The rich get richer and we foot the bill. Unfuckinbelievable.

Just a rumor. But even if it's only 40 a share it's a freaking joke. I wouldn't give more than 10.

FD
09-02-2010, 12:24 PM
A good article from The Economist on the GM takeover. I agree that in hindsight it was the right move.


Government Motors no more
An apology is due to Barack Obama: his takeover of GM could have gone horribly wrong, but it has not
Aug 19th 2010


AMERICANS expect much from their president, but they do not think he should run car companies. Fortunately, Barack Obama agrees. This week the American government moved closer to getting rid of its stake in General Motors (GM) when the recently ex-bankrupt firm filed to offer its shares once more to the public (see article).

Once a symbol of American prosperity, GM collapsed into the government’s arms last summer. Years of poor management and grabby unions had left it in wretched shape. Efforts to reform came too late. When the recession hit, demand for cars plummeted. GM was on the verge of running out of cash when Uncle Sam intervened, throwing the firm a lifeline of $50 billion in exchange for 61% of its shares.

Many people thought this bail-out (and a smaller one involving Chrysler, an even sicker firm) unwise. Governments have historically been lousy stewards of industry. Lovers of free markets (including The Economist) feared that Mr Obama might use GM as a political tool: perhaps favouring the unions who donate to Democrats or forcing the firm to build smaller, greener cars than consumers want to buy. The label “Government Motors” quickly stuck, evoking images of clunky committee-built cars that burned banknotes instead of petrol—all run by what Sarah Palin might call the socialist-in-chief.

Yet the doomsayers were wrong. Unlike, say, France’s President Nicolas Sarkozy, who used public funds to support Renault and Peugeot-Citroën on condition that they did not close factories in France, Mr Obama has been tough from the start. GM had to promise to slim down dramatically—cutting jobs, shuttering factories and shedding brands—to win its lifeline. The firm was forced to declare bankruptcy. Shareholders were wiped out. Top managers were swept aside. Unions did win some special favours: when Chrysler was divided among its creditors, for example, a union health fund did far better than secured bondholders whose claims should have been senior. Congress has put pressure on GM to build new models in America rather than Asia, and to keep open dealerships in certain electoral districts. But by and large Mr Obama has not used his stakes in GM and Chrysler for political ends. On the contrary, his goal has been to restore both firms to health and then get out as quickly as possible. GM is now profitable again and Chrysler, managed by Fiat, is making progress. Taxpayers might even turn a profit when GM is sold.

So was the auto bail-out a success? It is hard to be sure. Had the government not stepped in, GM might have restructured under normal bankruptcy procedures, without putting public money at risk. Many observers think this unlikely, however. Given the panic that gripped private purse-strings last year, it is more likely that GM would have been liquidated, sending a cascade of destruction through the supply chain on which its rivals, too, depended. As for moral hazard, the expectation of future bail-outs may prompt managers and unions in other industries to behave rashly. But all the stakeholders suffered during GM’s bankruptcy, so this effect may be small.


Socialists don’t privatise

That does not mean, however, that bail-outs are always or often justified. Straightforward bankruptcy is usually the most efficient way to allow floundering firms to restructure or fail. The state should step in only when a firm’s collapse poses a systemic risk. Propping up the financial system in 2008 clearly qualified. Saving GM was a harder call, but, with the benefit of hindsight, the right one. The lesson for governments is that for a bail-out to work, it must be brutal and temporary. The lesson for American voters is that their president, for all his flaws, has no desire to own the commanding heights of industry. A gambler, yes. An interventionist, yes. A socialist, no.

http://www.economist.com/node/16846494?story_id=16846494

stevieray
09-02-2010, 12:40 PM
sales plummented 25%?

Jenson71
09-02-2010, 01:52 PM
sales plummented 25%?

Compared to last year (when Cash for Clunkers was going on). The good news: "The decline in sales broke GM's 11-month streak of increasing monthly sales figures."

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/driveon/post/2010/09/gm-sales-down-249-due-to-cash-for-clunkers-hangover/1

BigMeatballDave
09-02-2010, 02:06 PM
sales plummented 25%?Fords sales dropped 15%, I think. Oddly enough, Chrysler was up 7%.

Amnorix
09-02-2010, 08:00 PM
There's a long way to go yet, but it seems with teh hindsight that we have today, the auto bailouts were a good thing. Certainly, given the overall economic situation at the time, letting 2 of the big 3 just implode into liquidation would have had devastating consequences.

Taco John
09-02-2010, 08:27 PM
There's a long way to go yet, but it seems with teh hindsight that we have today, the auto bailouts were a good thing. Certainly, given the overall economic situation at the time, letting 2 of the big 3 just implode into liquidation would have had devastating consequences.


It wouldn't have been devestating for the young upstarts who would have liked a foothold in the market. But leave it to liberals to preach against the rich getting richer and then giving them a hand up.

Garcia Bronco
09-02-2010, 08:27 PM
if they do business in the same way they are done and it was stupid.

Silock
09-02-2010, 08:34 PM
The rumor is their IPO will be 120 dollars a share. Ha ha.

What's so bad about that? There's nothing wrong with that price, so long as the total shares at that price don't total more than the valuation of the company.

Silock
09-02-2010, 08:35 PM
Compared to last year (when Cash for Clunkers was going on). The good news: "The decline in sales broke GM's 11-month streak of increasing monthly sales figures."

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/driveon/post/2010/09/gm-sales-down-249-due-to-cash-for-clunkers-hangover/1

So... they created another bubble. Seems like a LOT of people were saying that's exactly what would happen.

petegz28
09-02-2010, 09:25 PM
At this point in time they still owe us taxpayers $60 bil

HonestChieffan
09-02-2010, 10:27 PM
If someone lifted all my debt my business would have great profits.

Taco John
09-02-2010, 10:54 PM
For my part, I will never buy another GM vehicle for as long as I live.

The Mad Crapper
02-02-2011, 04:02 PM
Chrysler recently reported a 4th quarter loss of $652 million. So what does a UAW majority owned company that is losing money do? How about a bonus for UAW workers?

Current Chrysler ownership breakdown puts the UAW at a 63.5% ownership stake while the US Treasury holds a 9.2% stake. Italy's Fiat currently owns 25%. Bonuses planned for UAW workers are estimated to average $750.


It is disturbing that at the same time Chrysler plans for UAW bonus distributions they are back asking taxpayers for more money. Reuters reports that Chrysler has applied for $3 billion in subsidized loans from the Department of Energy. Sean McAlinden, chief economist for the Center for Automotive Research, says that Chrysler expects "another really tough year and they need the money." It seems odd that the UAW would receive bonuses under these circumstances.

The auto bailouts, as orchestrated by the Obama Administration, demonstrate that the UAW will get their payoffs, by hook or by crook. Ford factory workers are to receive about $5,000 each in bonuses. GM is expected to announce their bonus plan after reporting earnings. UAW president, Bob King has made clear that the UAW expects to share in any profits attained by GM, Ford or Chrysler. In the case of Chrysler, it seems the UAW expects to benefit even in the absence of profits.

Based on the past generosity displayed towards bailed out automakers, it is unlikely that Chrysler's loan request will be turned down. It remains to be seen if Republicans that now control Congress have the courage to stand against the continued taxpayer funding and UAW favoritism that have arisen from the auto bailouts. The politically favored UAW continues to benefit at the expense of tax paying Americans. Disingenuous statements proclaiming that taxpayers are being paid back through appreciating GM share price neglect the facts that the taxpayers are losing money in other areas such as the $45 billion tax write-off given to GM by the US Treasury. Subsidized loans are yet another way for the Obama Administration to funnel money in to struggling, bailed out automakers. At some point, our representatives should say, "enough is enough."

http://www.nlpc.org/stories/2011/02/02/chrysler-loses-money-gives-uaw-bonuses

ChiefsCountry
02-02-2011, 04:22 PM
Fuck the unions.

BucEyedPea
02-02-2011, 04:26 PM
I hope they go out of business to teach socialists ( including unions) a lesson about govt backed industries.

WV
02-02-2011, 04:51 PM
For my part, I will never buy another GM vehicle for as long as I live.
This :clap:

Fuck the unions.

And this! :clap:

HonestChieffan
02-02-2011, 04:54 PM
What Unions want, Obama grants.

The Mad Crapper
02-08-2011, 07:41 AM
It's good to see that Government Motors is using our tax dollars to redistribute wealth to the unions...

GM Workers To Receive Profit-Sharing Bonus
February 8, 2011 6:53 AM

DETROIT (WWJ) – It’s yet another sign that General Motors is back in business. There’s word that workers will be getting some of the largest profit sharing checks in the history of the automaker.

The exact amount is not expected to be known before February 14, but a senior UAW official tells the Detroit News that he anticipates GM bonuses to top the average check of nearly $1800 received by each worker back in 1999 – and that was GM’s largest payout ever.

The automaker confirms there will be a profit-sharing payout given their profits through September of $4.2 billion. Last month, Ford had payouts averaging $5000 per worker, while Chrysler workers got a performance incentive of $750.

It’s possible GM could top the bonuses with incentive pay to set the tone going into contract talks this summer.

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/_DFE3JnAqGKE/S-NSjmPq93I/AAAAAAAAA4U/5Bls20rlX_M/s512/20_2-sm1.jpg

The Mad Crapper
03-03-2011, 07:51 PM
Good news: GM sold 281 Chevy Volts last month
March 03, 2011 8:01:49

That brings the grand total so far up to … 928 cars.

I don’t get it. Why wouldn’t someone want to own a $41,000 electric car that under some circumstances gets worse mileage than a Prius?

LMAO at O-Bots

The Mad Crapper
07-05-2011, 11:30 AM
According to CNBC, General Motors has ramped up its lobbying efforts to the tune of $3.58 million in the first quarter of 2011. This is nearly triple the $1.36 million it spent in the first quarter of the prior year. It is also over double the $1.67 million spent by non-bailed out Ford in the same quarter. The $50 billion that taxpayers gave to bail out GM is now partially being distributed back to President Obama, Congress and a variety of agencies in an effort by GM to, well, receive more taxpayer money.

One of the requests made by GM lobbyists is to increase the number of Chevy Volts that qualify for the $7,500 tax credit from 200,000 to 500,000. At the current rate of sales, that's about a 100 years of subsidies! It is also an additional $2.25 billion of taxpayer money added to the current $1.5 billion of subsidies already approved. That is an awful lot of money for a vehicle that offers questionable benefits to the environment.

Other areas of handouts requested by GM include pension payment help from the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corp., the government agency that took over responsibility for $6.1 billion of pension obligations to Delphi Corp., GM's former parts arm. Delphi salaried retirees were treated much more poorly than UAW retirees regarding pensions and benefits retained after the GM bankruptcy process. Congress has recently held hearings on the unfair treatment that blatantly favored UAW members over other classes.

It is absurd that a company that has the US government as its largest shareholder spends millions of dollars to lobby that same government. Treasury should sell its taxpayer owned shares in GM now to avoid such conflicts of interests. Actions like the purchase of thousands of Chevy Volts by the Obama Administration and General Electric (headed by Obama crony, Jeff Immelt) will continue to be questioned as long as Obama has a vested interest in the success of GM as he campaigns for reelection. Any future perceived success by GM may come at the cost of billions more of taxpayer dollars.



Mark Modica is an NLPC Associate Fellow

http://nlpc.org/stories/2011/07/01/gm-spends-358-million-taxpayer-money-lobby-more-taxpayer-money

vailpass
07-05-2011, 11:35 AM
Let's not go sucking each other's ***** just yet.

go bowe
07-05-2011, 12:09 PM
Let's not go sucking each other's ***** just yet.

i dunno...

have you ever tried sucking katie horner's ears?

BucEyedPea
07-05-2011, 12:17 PM
A good article from The Economist on the GM takeover. I agree that in hindsight it was the right move.



http://www.economist.com/node/16846494?story_id=16846494

National Socialists and Corporatists unite!


Oh and uh, The Economist has a mercantilist flavor, ( not what our Constitution supports) as well as being Keynesian.


Making the rich richer off the US taxpayers—oops I mean slaves!

Amnorix
07-05-2011, 12:20 PM
If someone lifted all my debt my business would have great profits.


Can you forgive Bush?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/20/business/20auto.html

Amnorix
07-05-2011, 12:21 PM
National Socialists and Corporatists unite!


Oh and uh, The Economist has a mercantilist flavor, ( not what our Constitution supports) as well as being Keynesian.

Really? What economic system does our Constitution support, and give me the exact section references you cite...

vailpass
07-05-2011, 12:39 PM
Can you forgive Bush?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/20/business/20auto.html

When will you obots stop this? If they ever do find obama's real birth certificate the name on it will read obama atleasti'mnotbush.

Amnorix
07-05-2011, 12:47 PM
When will you obots stop this? If they ever do find obama's real birth certificate the name on it will read obama atleasti'mnotbush.

When the facts aren't on your side, it can be very irritating, I agree.

I'm very sorry that Bush approved the initial stages of the GM bailout before leaving office. I'm equally sorry that his tax cuts early in his Administration significantly exacerbated the federal deficit and debt, which means any time those topics come up, people on the left are going to note it. But da facts are da facts.

That doesn't mean that Obama gets a free pass on everything or whatever, of course, but the passage of a relatively brief period of time on the calendar doesn't exonerate Bush from all the fallout of his Presidency either.

vailpass
07-05-2011, 12:51 PM
When the facts aren't on your side, it can be very irritating, I agree.

I'm very sorry that Bush approved the initial stages of the GM bailout before leaving office. I'm equally sorry that his tax cuts early in his Administration significantly exacerbated the federal deficit and debt, which means any time those topics come up, people on the left are going to note it. But da facts are da facts.

That doesn't mean that Obama gets a free pass on everything or whatever, of course, but the passage of a relatively brief period of time on the calendar doesn't exonerate Bush from all the fallout of his Presidency either.

Your attempt at condescension is an ineffective vehicle for obscuring the fact that time after time the best obama supporters can do is try and excuse obama's failure's by turning the conversation to President Bush.
I wish to God you could instead point to obama's successes, point to where he has done better than his predecessors. But you can't, to all of our sorrow.

BucEyedPea
07-05-2011, 12:55 PM
Well let's say GM is a smashing success, for argument's sake. That still does not make it right. It merely crowded out what another buyer may have also done, or cleared dead weight for something new and better. This thing has set a bad precedent in terms of growing national socialism, as did the Chrysler bailout years ago, who, btw, had a buyer.

Amnorix
07-05-2011, 01:18 PM
Your attempt at condescension is an ineffective vehicle for obscuring the fact that time after time the best obama supporters can do is try and excuse obama's failure's by turning the conversation to President Bush.
I wish to God you could instead point to obama's successes, point to where he has done better than his predecessors. But you can't, to all of our sorrow.

I don't see Obama's Presidency as a failure, so I don't accept your basic premise. Neither do I see it as a resounding success. Mostly, I haven't heard too many very good alternatives to the economic programs he instituted, and while I bemoan the increased deficit/debt more than most, I also understand that instituting belt-tightening measures in a down economy is potentially suicidal, as the Greeks are currently learning.

Amnorix
07-05-2011, 01:22 PM
Well let's say GM is a smashing success, for argument's sake. That still does not make it right. It merely crowded out what another buyer may have also done, or cleared dead weight for something new and better. This thing has set a bad precedent in terms of growing national socialism, as did the Chrysler bailout years ago, who, btw, had a buyer.

You assume a painless / seamless transition to what "another buyer' may have done, instead of the years of agonizing bankruptcy proceedings that would have inevitably resulted, with massive disruption to the economy. Disruption that we could ill-afford in 2008 with the economy already reeling.

Generally, I also seriously disfavor such direct governmental interference, and I am also concerned about the moral hazard issue. I'm glad Lehman was allowed to die the "normal" way. But we may ahve seen Great Depression-like results if Chrysler and GM had died the "normal" way also.

vailpass
07-05-2011, 01:30 PM
I don't see Obama's Presidency as a failure, so I don't accept your basic premise. Neither do I see it as a resounding success. Mostly, I haven't heard too many very good alternatives to the economic programs he instituted, and while I bemoan the increased deficit/debt more than most, I also understand that instituting belt-tightening measures in a down economy is potentially suicidal, as the Greeks are currently learning.

You don't see obama as a failure so far? I'd be interested to hear specific reasons for that.

No belt tightening? Do you favor raising taxes?

The Mad Crapper
07-05-2011, 01:37 PM
I'm very sorry that Bush approved the initial stages of the GM bailout before leaving office.

That's right, inititally, Bush used TARP funds (was that even legal?!) to bail out GM. Before I continue---

What conservatives were applauding that??? I sure as hell wasn't. I knew from the gitgo Hank Paulson was a crook and a liar, and it's a fact I said I didn't want any taxpayer dollars to go to bail out BOA, Citi or any car companies. I know I wasn't left with anybody to vote for when both POTUS candidates, senators Obuttocks and McAmnesty both voted in support of the bailouts. I believe you voted for Obama?

Anyway, Bush gave GM $17 billion, but B.O. gave them $50 billion.

And B.O. says the bailout was/is a "success".

ROFL

So are you going to give Bush credit for that "success"?

http://gm-volt.com/2010/04/25/obama-says-gm-bailout-has-been-a-success/

petegz28
07-05-2011, 01:41 PM
So has GM paid back the 10's of billions they still owe us?

Amnorix
07-05-2011, 04:16 PM
You don't see obama as a failure so far? I'd be interested to hear specific reasons for that.

Some of these overlap to some degree, but:

Got OBL, refocused our military efforts into Afghanistan and away from Iraq, significant successes in decapitation strikes against Al Quada/Taliban leadership, the usual social liberal package of executive orders which I favor, improved view of the US in Europe among our allies, avoidance of complete financial collapse which still loomed as a possibility when he was inaugurated, reduction/elimination of abuses in handling of terrorist prisoners, good selections to Supreme Court, drawdown in Iraq, steered a middle course in bank bailouts and other use of government funds to stabilize the economy, seems to know when to pick his battles with Congress, seemingly more willing to compromise and negotiate with Republicans than many prior Presidents who are hardened in their position (not just GWB), projects steady demeanor of calm and self-assurance, knows how to pronounce "nuclear) (but not corpsman, so I guess that balances out), most of the time he's a pragmatic realist with clearly defined goals who does well in achieving them.

I could list his failures/negatives as well, but plenty of people on here are all too eager to do that, usually on a daily basis.

No belt tightening? Do you favor raising taxes?

I meant in the past. What I favor is getting the economy going by targetting unemployment through various means, and then the implementation of gradual spending cuts in ALL areas of government coupled with modest tax increases to close/eliminate the federal deficit. This would include, idealistically and probably impossibly, dramatic reform of Social Security, Medicare and a top-to-bottom review of military spending.

ROYC75
07-05-2011, 04:28 PM
I don't see Obama's Presidency as a failure, so I don't accept your basic premise. Neither do I see it as a resounding success. Mostly, I haven't heard too many very good alternatives to the economic programs he instituted, and while I bemoan the increased deficit/debt more than most, I also understand that instituting belt-tightening measures in a down economy is potentially suicidal, as the Greeks are currently learning.

Only liberal or a tow leaning party liner feel this way. Maybe we can feed you some info you are missing out on ? Maybe ? :shrug:

White House Disputes Study Saying Stimulus Cost Taxpayers $278,000 Per Job

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/07/05/white-house-disputes-study-saying-stimulus-cost-taxpayers-278000-per-job/#ixzz1RGiAmsF8

The White House on Tuesday sharply disputed a report that uses data from President Obama's economic advisers to claim that jobs created or saved by the stimulus bill cost taxpayers $278,000 each.

The report released by the president's Council of Economic Advisers late Friday ahead of the July 4 holiday weekend estimated the Recovery Act saved or created between 2.4 million and 3.6 million jobs by the end of March 2011. Spending equaled $666 billion by that time.


The White House is sharply disputing a report that argues President Obama's stimulus package cost taxpayers $278,000 per job that it created or saved.

"That's a cost to taxpayers of $278,000 per job," according to the Weekly Standard, a Washington, D.C.-based magazine. "In other words, the government could simply have cut a $100,000 check to everyone whose employment was allegedly made possible by the 'stimulus,' and taxpayers would have come out $427 billion ahead."

But the White House said that study is based on "partial information and false analysis."

"The Recovery Act was more than a measure to create and save jobs; it was also an investment in American infrastructure, education and industries that are critical to America's long-term success and investment in the economic future of America's working families," White House spokeswoman Liz Oxhorn said in a statement to FoxNews.com.

"The nonpartisan CBO has confirmed that the Recovery Act delivered as promised, lowering the unemployment rate by as much as 2 percent, boosting GDP by as much as 4 percent and creating and saving as many as 3.6 million jobs," she said.

A White House official told Fox News that the stimulus didn't just fund salaries, it also went to pay for infrastructure such as construction materials and new factories, which are in addition to salaries.

"It's essentially saying part of the cost of a factory construction job is part of the factory itself, but investments like factories have a lasting and larger economic impact beyond just the initial job count," the official said.

The official added that the Weekly Standard cited a 2.4 million job figure instead of the 2.4 million to 3.6 million jobs listed in the White House report.

Republican lawmakers say the unemployment rate is the real figure to watch. While it was 7.3 percent when the stimulus was enacted, it's now 9.1 percent, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

"If you look at unemployment, unemployment has gone up by 1.9 million Americans. The unemployment rate has gone up 17 percent since the president took office," Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., said last week. "So this is not like a situation where you said, 'I inherited a bad economy, but I'm gradually making it better.' He's making it worse."

The Weekly Standard noted that the national debt at the end of 2008, when Obama was preparing for his presidency, was $9.986 trillion, but it's currently $14.467 trillion.

Ethan Pollack, a senior policy analyst with the progressive Economic Policy Institute, told FoxNews.com that the comparison between dollars spent and jobs created or saved shouldn't be made because "it's a silly way of looking" at the stimulus.

"I think it obscures more than it reveals," Pollack said. For example, it is common for employers to cut hours during a recession and increase them during a recovery instead of cutting or adding jobs, which isn't reflected in those calculations, he said.

David Cote, CEO of Honeywell, told Fox News that the stimulus plan did more than just create jobs, it helped restore confidence in the business sectors.

"I would say I have never seen such fear in the business community as I did at that time," Cote said. Everybody panicked. .... I liken that a herd was running off the cliff and you had to fire a shot. You might have killed a cow in the process or someone said it could have gone this way, but you had to stop the herd from running off the cliff."

Fox News' Mike Emanuel contributed to this report.

petegz28
07-05-2011, 05:50 PM
Only liberal or a tow leaning party liner feel this way. Maybe we can feed you some info you are missing out on ? Maybe ? :shrug:

White House Disputes Study Saying Stimulus Cost Taxpayers $278,000 Per Job

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/07/05/white-house-disputes-study-saying-stimulus-cost-taxpayers-278000-per-job/#ixzz1RGiAmsF8

The White House on Tuesday sharply disputed a report that uses data from President Obama's economic advisers to claim that jobs created or saved by the stimulus bill cost taxpayers $278,000 each.

The report released by the president's Council of Economic Advisers late Friday ahead of the July 4 holiday weekend estimated the Recovery Act saved or created between 2.4 million and 3.6 million jobs by the end of March 2011. Spending equaled $666 billion by that time.


The White House is sharply disputing a report that argues President Obama's stimulus package cost taxpayers $278,000 per job that it created or saved.

"That's a cost to taxpayers of $278,000 per job," according to the Weekly Standard, a Washington, D.C.-based magazine. "In other words, the government could simply have cut a $100,000 check to everyone whose employment was allegedly made possible by the 'stimulus,' and taxpayers would have come out $427 billion ahead."

But the White House said that study is based on "partial information and false analysis."

"The Recovery Act was more than a measure to create and save jobs; it was also an investment in American infrastructure, education and industries that are critical to America's long-term success and investment in the economic future of America's working families," White House spokeswoman Liz Oxhorn said in a statement to FoxNews.com.

"The nonpartisan CBO has confirmed that the Recovery Act delivered as promised, lowering the unemployment rate by as much as 2 percent, boosting GDP by as much as 4 percent and creating and saving as many as 3.6 million jobs," she said.

A White House official told Fox News that the stimulus didn't just fund salaries, it also went to pay for infrastructure such as construction materials and new factories, which are in addition to salaries.

"It's essentially saying part of the cost of a factory construction job is part of the factory itself, but investments like factories have a lasting and larger economic impact beyond just the initial job count," the official said.

The official added that the Weekly Standard cited a 2.4 million job figure instead of the 2.4 million to 3.6 million jobs listed in the White House report.

Republican lawmakers say the unemployment rate is the real figure to watch. While it was 7.3 percent when the stimulus was enacted, it's now 9.1 percent, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

"If you look at unemployment, unemployment has gone up by 1.9 million Americans. The unemployment rate has gone up 17 percent since the president took office," Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., said last week. "So this is not like a situation where you said, 'I inherited a bad economy, but I'm gradually making it better.' He's making it worse."

The Weekly Standard noted that the national debt at the end of 2008, when Obama was preparing for his presidency, was $9.986 trillion, but it's currently $14.467 trillion.

Ethan Pollack, a senior policy analyst with the progressive Economic Policy Institute, told FoxNews.com that the comparison between dollars spent and jobs created or saved shouldn't be made because "it's a silly way of looking" at the stimulus.

"I think it obscures more than it reveals," Pollack said. For example, it is common for employers to cut hours during a recession and increase them during a recovery instead of cutting or adding jobs, which isn't reflected in those calculations, he said.

David Cote, CEO of Honeywell, told Fox News that the stimulus plan did more than just create jobs, it helped restore confidence in the business sectors.

"I would say I have never seen such fear in the business community as I did at that time," Cote said. Everybody panicked. .... I liken that a herd was running off the cliff and you had to fire a shot. You might have killed a cow in the process or someone said it could have gone this way, but you had to stop the herd from running off the cliff."

Fox News' Mike Emanuel contributed to this report.

LMAO

petegz28
07-05-2011, 05:51 PM
HTF is going from 7.3 to the current 9.1 lowering unempliyment by 2%???? No wonder Obama and Co. can't get shit done....they fail basic math!

The Mad Crapper
07-05-2011, 05:52 PM
refocused our military efforts into Afghanistan and away from Iraq.


Iraq was pretty much done no thanks to senator Obama who wanted to surrender, as did Pelosi and Harry "the war is lost" Reid.

the usual social liberal package of executive orders which I favor


How's that embryonic stem cell research working out? Remember how all the moonbats were crying about Bushitler was preventing paraplegics from walking again because he wouldn't fork over taxpayer money to fund it?

improved view of the US in Europe among our allies


To put it nicely, that's ambiguous. To be honest, it's pure BS.

avoidance of complete financial collapse which still loomed as a possibility when he was inaugurated

You believed Hank Paulson? You still believe Hank Paulson?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-I92oNTmZow

Let's recall when McCain and B.O. agreed to temporarily put their campaigns on pause so they could make like rats back to DC to get a piece of the action.

TARP was the greatest swindle ever perpertrated. The victims were the American taxpayer, and the criminals/perpertrators was the US Government.

Let's also recall the main selling point (and the American people didn't fall for it, they bogged down the House phone lines trying to get through to their reps to tell them to vote no) to TARP was that the fund was going to be used to buy the toxic assets. Instead, they doled it out to everybody who was connected on Wall Street. It makes me sick just talking about it so I won't continue. But make no mistake, the slick Chicago shakedown artist Barry O was up to his neck in the slime. He still is.

reduction/elimination of abuses in handling of terrorist prisoners


More ambiguity. And even it was tangible, who cares? Wow. Terrorists can now get seconds of key lime pie at club gitmo. I'm sure jobless Americans sleep much better at night once they know that.

good selections to Supreme Court

ROFL

Kagan and the wise latina are not qualified to be on the supreme court. That is a joke.

steered a middle course in bank bailouts and other use of government funds to stabilize the economy

LMAO

Oh yea, he really stablized it. We havent had a budget in over 800 days (half of them he was president and 1/4 of them he was a Senator), we have 9.1 % unemployment, the dollar is monopoly money, the dems want to raise taxes after spending trillions of dollars we don't have, and the Fed chairman doesn't know why the economy isn't improving.

seems to know when to pick his battles with Congress, seemingly more willing to compromise and negotiate with Republicans than many prior Presidents who are hardened in their position (not just GWB

This is delusional. No need to even comment.

projects steady demeanor of calm and self-assurance

In other words, he's aloof and oblivious.


most of the time he's a pragmatic realist

A pragmatist doesn't ram a National Healthcare agenda down the citizenry's fault when he's been served notice they don't want it.


he's a pragmatic realist with clearly defined goals who does well in achieving them..


What are these clearly defined goals? Extending the Patriot Act? Keeping Gitmo open?

Dude, you should be embarassed.


Got OBL

Yeah, he did. I'll give you that and the terrorists at GITMO are treated alot better.

Good luck if that's what he's running on in 2012.

FD
07-05-2011, 07:40 PM
HTF is going from 7.3 to the current 9.1 lowering unempliyment by 2%???? No wonder Obama and Co. can't get shit done....they fail basic math!

Is this post sarcasm? It has to be.

petegz28
07-05-2011, 08:27 PM
Is this post sarcasm? It has to be.

You tell me? Last time I checked 7.3 - 9.1 = -1.8.

How is that lowering Unemployment by 2%? Wouldn't unemployment have to be 5.1% to be lowered 2%?

He hasn't even lowered it 2% from it's highest point.

HonestChieffan
07-05-2011, 08:30 PM
StimulusFail v3.0


(CNSNews.com) — The jobs created or saved by the federal government’s economic stimulus spending are steadily going away, according to a report from the White House Council of Economic Advisors (CEA). As stimulus spending declines, so too does the support it provided to employment.

The report, released late on Friday, July 1, shows that stimulus spending is now supporting fewer jobs than it did in the previous two quarters — supporting approximately 2.4 million jobs in the first quarter of 2011.

According to the report, because stimulus spending is receding, the jobs estimated to have been supported by that spending are beginning to disappear as well. At the height of its effectiveness — the second and third quarters of 2010 — the CEA estimated that the stimulus was supporting 2.7 and 2.8 million jobs respectively.

When Obama signed the $787 billion stimulus spending into law — the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) — on Feb. 17, 2009, he said, “Now, what makes this recovery plan so important is not just that it will create or save 3.5 million jobs over the next two years, including 60,000-plus here in Colorado. It’s that we’re putting Americans to work doing the work that America needs done — in critical areas that have been neglected for too long; work that will bring real and lasting change for generations to come.”

The CEA said the federal spending had caused employment to be higher than what it would normally have been without the stimulus, arguing that the jobs’ figures it presented reflected the number of jobs created or saved by the federal spending.

“In terms of direct impact on employment and GDP, the ARRA was intended to stop the economic slide and to be temporary stimulus to fill part of the substantial hole in aggregate demand left by the crisis,” the report said.

However, the CEA also noted that as stimulus spending declined, so too would its impact on jobs, meaning that the stimulus would support fewer and fewer jobs.

“The Act was designed to have a peak cumulative impact in the second half of 2010,” reads the report. ”Because the ARRA was not designed to be permanent, these outlays and tax reductions will decline over time and thus the impact on GDP and employment are phasing down.”

In other words, because stimulus spending was always designed to be temporary, so too were the jobs it supported, meaning there will be fewer and fewer jobs supported by government spending in the future.

petegz28
07-05-2011, 08:33 PM
StimulusFail v3.0


(CNSNews.com) — The jobs created or saved by the federal government’s economic stimulus spending are steadily going away, according to a report from the White House Council of Economic Advisors (CEA). As stimulus spending declines, so too does the support it provided to employment.

The report, released late on Friday, July 1, shows that stimulus spending is now supporting fewer jobs than it did in the previous two quarters — supporting approximately 2.4 million jobs in the first quarter of 2011.

According to the report, because stimulus spending is receding, the jobs estimated to have been supported by that spending are beginning to disappear as well. At the height of its effectiveness — the second and third quarters of 2010 — the CEA estimated that the stimulus was supporting 2.7 and 2.8 million jobs respectively.

When Obama signed the $787 billion stimulus spending into law — the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) — on Feb. 17, 2009, he said, “Now, what makes this recovery plan so important is not just that it will create or save 3.5 million jobs over the next two years, including 60,000-plus here in Colorado. It’s that we’re putting Americans to work doing the work that America needs done — in critical areas that have been neglected for too long; work that will bring real and lasting change for generations to come.”

The CEA said the federal spending had caused employment to be higher than what it would normally have been without the stimulus, arguing that the jobs’ figures it presented reflected the number of jobs created or saved by the federal spending.

“In terms of direct impact on employment and GDP, the ARRA was intended to stop the economic slide and to be temporary stimulus to fill part of the substantial hole in aggregate demand left by the crisis,” the report said.

However, the CEA also noted that as stimulus spending declined, so too would its impact on jobs, meaning that the stimulus would support fewer and fewer jobs.

“The Act was designed to have a peak cumulative impact in the second half of 2010,” reads the report. ”Because the ARRA was not designed to be permanent, these outlays and tax reductions will decline over time and thus the impact on GDP and employment are phasing down.”

In other words, because stimulus spending was always designed to be temporary, so too were the jobs it supported, meaning there will be fewer and fewer jobs supported by government spending in the future.

Smoke and mirrors.

Amnorix
07-05-2011, 09:14 PM
Dude, you should be embarassed.


:shrug: I hate to tell you this, but a huge segment of the American population, including the voting population, and (horror) at least a few who aren't on welfare, agree with me and not you.

Whether his policies were successful ENOUGH will be determined in about 15 months.

ROYC75
07-06-2011, 12:01 PM
:shrug: I hate to tell you this, but a huge segment of the American population, including the voting population, and (horror) at least a few who aren't on welfare, agree with me and not you.

Whether his policies were successful ENOUGH will be determined in about 15 months.


Yep, Nov. 2012 will tell .

OK, it's not like it's already a telling fact now ? But to the Lib's & Dems, Nov. 2012 will tell them what they are failing to see..

The Mad Crapper
07-06-2011, 02:16 PM
:shrug: I hate to tell you this, but a huge segment of the American population, including the voting population, and (horror) at least a few who aren't on welfare, agree with me and not you.

Whether his policies were successful ENOUGH will be determined in about 15 months.

If he wins again, well... all I can say is tried, I did what I could to prevent that cataclysm from happening. The way I see it, everybody sooner or later gets what they deserve, and I'm a big fan of Schadenfreude. I know I'll be alright.

Chief Faithful
07-06-2011, 02:24 PM
I don't see a success when I am paying taxes to support a car company that is making over priced crap cars. It would have been better for the company to die so opportunity and limited resources could be put in the hands of better managers.