Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Obama’s Economists: ‘Stimulus’ Has Cost $278,000 per Job

  1. #1
    SiriuslyLong is offline
    Guru
    SiriuslyLong's Avatar
    Joined: Jan 2009 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 3,560

    Obama’s Economists: ‘Stimulus’ Has Cost $278,000 per Job

    When the Obama administration releases a report on the Friday before a long weekend, it’s clearly not trying to draw attention to the report’s contents. Sure enough, the “Seventh Quarterly Report” on the economic impact of the “stimulus,” released on Friday, July 1, provides further evidence that President Obama’s economic “stimulus” did very little, if anything, to stimulate the economy, and a whole lot to stimulate the debt.



    The report was written by the White House’s Council of Economic Advisors, a group of three economists who were all handpicked by Obama, and it chronicles the alleged success of the “stimulus” in adding or saving jobs. The council reports that, using “mainstream estimates of economic multipliers for the effects of fiscal stimulus” (which it describes as a “natural way to estimate the effects of” the legislation), the “stimulus” has added or saved just under 2.4 million jobs — whether private or public — at a cost (to date) of $666 billion. That’s a cost to taxpayers of $278,000 per job.

    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.

    Furthermore, the council reports that, as of two quarters ago, the “stimulus” had added or saved just under 2.7 million jobs — or 288,000 more than it has now. In other words, over the past six months, the economy would have added or saved more jobs without the “stimulus” than it has with it. In comparison to how things would otherwise have been, the “stimulus” has been working in reverse over the past six months, causing the economy to shed jobs.


    http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/...ob_576014.html

    Like Howard Stern said today, tax revenue should be considered precious.

    And I would agree with the guy as I've said in the past; if you really want to stimulate the economy, go ahead and cut us all $50,000 checks. We could spend it (stimulating the economy), or save it (increasing liquidity). But nooooooooooooooooooooooooo, we need big government programs with waste and fraud.............................. It's TOTALLY assinine.
    Last edited by SiriuslyLong; 08-16-2011 at 04:28 PM.

  2. #2
    SiriuslyLong is offline
    Guru
    SiriuslyLong's Avatar
    Joined: Jan 2009 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 3,560
    I wonder how much his "next" jobs package is going to cost my 10 year old daughter.

    I'm sure this wasn't read; so I will reiterate an interesting comment, "tax revenue should be considered precious."

  3. #3
    Havakasha is offline
    Legend
    Havakasha's Avatar
    Joined: Sep 2009 Posts: 5,358
    Rated False by Politifact:

    Boehner
    "POTUS’ economists: ‘Stimulus’ Has Cost $278,000 per job."

    John Boehner on Tuesday, July 5th, 2011 in a tweet on Twitter
    House Speaker John Boehner says Obama's economists figure stimulus cost at $278,000 per job
    False

    Republicans in Congress were not functioning independently of one another on their first workday after the Independence Day holiday.

    Shortly after noon on July 5, House Speaker John Boehner’s "tweeted" a July 3 blog posting from the conservative Weekly Standard’s website, labeling it "POTUS’ economists: ‘Stimulus’ Has Cost $278,000 per job."

    Around 4 p.m., the National Republican Congressional Committee followed suit with multiple press releases that used the same Weekly Standard blog item to target dozens of Democrats in Congress, including Ohio’s Betty Sutton. Its headline: "New Report Shows Dems’ Failed Stimulus Cost $278,000 Per Job As Economy Got Worse." It went onto claim that Sutton’s "government spending spree" "delivered little except skyrocketing debt owed to foreign countries like China."

    By 4:55 p.m., the National Republican Senatorial Committee had recycled the Weekly Standard blog posting to attack Ohio Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown. This time the claim was: "President Obama’s own top economists estimate that the Obama-Brown stimulus debacle cost taxpayers an average $278,000 per job."

    PolitiFact Ohio thought the concerted GOP effort made it worthy of a look. Since Boehner kicked it off on Twitter, we’ll use his tweet.

    The Weekly Standard blog item that spawned the statistic cites a July 1 report by the White House Council of Economic Advisers, which states the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act "saved or created between 2.4 and 3.6 million jobs as of the first quarter of 2011." It also tallies the sum of the stimulus bill’s outlays and tax cuts at $666 billion.

    The $278,000 per job figure doesn’t appear anywhere in the White House report. To come up with that number, the publication divided the $666 billion stimulus total by the low-end 2.4 million job estimate to come up with a dollars per job statistic that it rounded off to $278,000.

    The blog item contends this statistic "provides further evidence that President Obama’s ‘stimulus’ did very little, if anything, to stimulate the economy and a whole lot to stimulate the debt," and insists "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."

    After Republicans began to circulate the blog item, White House spokesman Jay Carney said its conclusions were "based on partial information and simply false analysis." White House spokeswoman Liz Oxhorn issued a statement that noted the Recovery Act bolstered infrastructure, education, and industries "that are critical to America’s long-term success and an investment in the economic future of America’s working families."

    The White House points out that Recovery Act dollars didn’t just fund salaries - as the blog item implies - it also funded numerous capital improvements and infrastructure projects.

    Lumping all costs together and classifying it as salaries produces an inflated figure.

    Furthermore, the publication created its statistic with the report’s low end jobs estimate. Had it instead gone with the 3.6 million job figure at the top end of the range, it would have come up with a smaller $185,000 per job figure.

    Republicans made a similar assertion in November 2009, using similar calculations to contend that the stimulus cost taxpayers more than $246,000 per job. Back then, they divided $160 billion in stimulus spending by 650,000 jobs that the White House estimated the measure had created or preserved. A "fact check" conducted at the time by the Associated Press called that math "satisfyingly simple but highly misleading."

    "Any cost-per-job figure pays not just for the worker, but for the material, supplies and that workers’ output - a portion of a road paved, patients treated in a health clinic, goods shipped form a factory floor, railroad tracks laid," the 2009 Associated Press item noted.

    The Weekly Standard claimed that the stimulus actually "has been working in reverse the last six months, causing the economy to shed jobs." It derives this conclusion from the fact that as of two quarters ago, the stimulus had added or saved just under 2.7 million jobs - or 288,000 more than it has now.

    Moody’s chief economist Mark Zandi says the Weekly Standard misinterpreted that data.

    "It’s not that ARRA [the stimulus] is now costing the economy jobs, it is that the economy is now creating jobs without ARRA’s help," Zandi told TPMDC. "This is exactly the objective of fiscal stimulus, namely to end recession and jump-start economic recovery."

    The day after the White House responded to the GOP’s dissemination of the Weekly Standard blog item, its author penned a defense that reiterates his claims. He says he never said that $278,000 per job went to salaries, but "rather that each job has cost taxpayers $278,000."

    Yet, his original item did say taxpayers would have come out $427 billion ahead if the government had simply "cut a $100,000 check to everyone whose employment was allegedly made possible by the ‘stimulus?"

    So where does that leave Boehner’s tweet that said "POTUS’ economists: ‘Stimulus’ Has Cost $278,000 per job."


    * The figure attributed to the president’s economists does not appear anywhere in the White House report.

    * Rather, the Weekly Standard attributed the number to economists at the White House after it made its own calculations and conclusions.

    * The methodology used to get that number was previously termed suspect because it lumps all costs associated with stimulus projects together as if they are wages, suggesting it would have been cheaper to just "cut a $100,000 check" to each person who found work as a result of the stimulus.


    On the Truth-O-Meter, we rate Boehner’s tweet (and the subsequent variations of his claim) as False.

  4. #4
    Havakasha is offline
    Legend
    Havakasha's Avatar
    Joined: Sep 2009 Posts: 5,358
    Again Politifact says False:

    Dewhurst
    Says President Barack Obama’s "own economists say the stimulus cost $278K per job ‘created.’ "

    David Dewhurst on Tuesday, July 5th, 2011 in a Twitter message.
    David Dewhurst says president's economists say stimulus-created jobs cost $278,000 each
    False


    In a Twitter post, Texas Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst criticized the economic stimulus program that President Barack Obama signed into law two years ago, writing July 5: "What a nightmare! Obama's own economists say the stimulus cost $278K per job 'created.' "

    Dewhurst’s tweet included a link to a July 3 blog posting on the conservative Weekly Standard’s website headlined: "Obama's Economists: 'Stimulus' Has Cost $278,000 per Job."

    Earlier the same day, the U.S. House speaker, John Boehner, R-Ohio, posted a similar claim linked to the Weekly Standard's blog. PolitiFact Ohio gave the claim a closer look.

    The Weekly Standard item cites a July 1 report by the White House Council of Economic Advisers stating that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act "saved or created between 2.4 and 3.6 million jobs as of the first quarter of 2011." That report also tallies the sum of the stimulus bill's outlays and tax cuts at $666 billion.

    The $278,000 per job figure doesn't appear in the report. To come up with that number, the publication divided the $666 billion stimulus total by the report's low-end 2.4 million job estimate to come up with a dollars-per-job statistic that it rounded off to $278,000.

    The blog item contends this statistic "provides further evidence that President Obama's 'stimulus' did very little, if anything, to stimulate the economy and a whole lot to stimulate the debt," and insists that "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."

    After Republicans began to circulate the blog item, White House spokesman Jay Carney said its conclusions were "based on partial information and simply false analysis." Carney noted that the stimulus was "meant to do much more than just create and save jobs; it was also an investment in American infrastructure, education, and industries like clean energy … and investment in the economic future of America's working families."

    We checked the White House report, and of the $666 billion stimulus total, 43 percent was spent on tax cuts for individuals and businesses; 19 percent went to state governments, primarily for education and Medicaid; and 13 percent paid for government benefits to individuals such as unemployment and food stamps.

    The remainder, about 24 percent, was spent on projects such as infrastructure improvement, health information technology and research on renewable energy.

    The White House points out that Recovery Act dollars didn’t just fund salaries — as the blog item implies. Lumping all stimulus costs together and classifying the total as salaries produces an inflated figure.

    Furthermore, the publication created its statistic with the report's low-end jobs estimate. Had it gone with the 3.6 million job figure at the top end of the range, it would have come up with a smaller $185,000 per job figure.

    Republicans made a similar assertion in November 2009, using similar calculations to contend that the stimulus cost taxpayers more than $246,000 per job. Back then, they divided $160 billion in stimulus spending by the 650,000 jobs that the White House estimated the measure had created or preserved. A "fact check" conducted at the time by the Associated Press called that math "satisfyingly simple but highly misleading."

    "Any cost-per-job figure pays not just for the worker, but for the material, supplies and that workers’ output — a portion of a road paved, patients treated in a health clinic, goods shipped from a factory floor, railroad tracks laid," the 2009 Associated Press item noted.

    The Weekly Standard claimed that the stimulus actually "has been working in reverse the last six months, causing the economy to shed jobs." It derives this conclusion from the fact that as of two quarters ago, the stimulus had added or saved just under 2.7 million jobs — or 288,000 more than it has now.

    Moody’s chief economist Mark Zandi says the Weekly Standard misinterpreted that data.

    "It's not that ARRA (the stimulus) is now costing the economy jobs, it is that the economy is now creating jobs without ARRA's help," Zandi told Talking Points Memo DC. "This is exactly the objective of fiscal stimulus, namely to end recession and jump-start economic recovery."

    The day after the White House responded to the GOP's dissemination of the Weekly Standard blog item, its author penned a defense that reiterates his claims. He says he never said that $278,000 per job went to salaries, but "rather that each job has cost taxpayers $278,000."

    Then again, this clarification doesn't fit with the blogger's earlier claim that taxpayers would have come out ahead if the government had just cut checks to everyone credited with getting a stimulus-tied job.

    Contrary to Dewhurst's statement, the cited cost-per-job figure was not aired by the Obama administration. At bottom, his statement leaves the misimpression that the money went solely for jobs rather than a range of projects and programs, including tax breaks. We rate his claim False.

    UPDATE, 4:45 p.m., July 20, 2011: After receiving feedback from a reader, we updated this item with further details about Recovery Act costs through March 2011. These changes did not affect our rating of Dewhurst's statement.

  5. #5
    Havakasha is offline
    Legend
    Havakasha's Avatar
    Joined: Sep 2009 Posts: 5,358
    One more time. False


    PolitiFact.com
    Powered by PolitiFact.com and Statesman.com

    The article:
    Boehner, Dewhurst and stimulus jobs

    By W. Gardner Selby
    Published on Wednesday, July 20th, 2011 at 12:18 p.m
    False
    Says President Barack Obama’s "own economists say the stimulus cost $278K per job ‘created.’ "

    David Dewhurst, Tuesday, July 5th, 2011.

    Ruling: False
    David Dewhurst and John Boehner aired similar claims. (Austin American-Statesman photo).



    Courtesy of our colleagues at PolitiFact Ohio, we learned of a flawed claim about the economic stimulus signed into law by President Barack Obama in 2009 that originated with Republicans in Congress. The claim’s targets included two Texas Democrats.

    All this happened before Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, who just declared his candidacy for the U.S. Senate, trod the same turf.

    Shortly after noon July 5, House Speaker John Boehner tweeted a July 3 blog posting from the conservative Weekly Standard’s website, labeling it "POTUS’ economists: ‘Stimulus’ Has Cost $278,000 per job." (POTUS stands for president of the United States.)

    Around 4 p.m., the National Republican Congressional Committee followed suit with multiple press releases that used the same Weekly Standard item to target dozens of Democrats in Congress including Reps. Henry Cuellar and Ruben Hinojosa of Texas. Its headline: "New Report Shows Dems’ Failed Stimulus Cost $278,000 Per Job As Economy Got Worse." It went onto claim that each targeted member’s "government spending spree" delivered "little except skyrocketing debt owed to foreign countries like China."

    And in Texas that day, Dewhurst said in a Twitter message: "What a nightmare! Obama's own economists say the stimulus cost $278K per job ‘created.’ "

    His comment was followed by a link to the Weekly Standard blog entry, which links to a White House report that, in fact, does not include the per-job figure. Also, we concluded, the cost-per-job claim leaves the misimpression that the stimulus money went solely for jobs rather than a range of projects. It’s rated False.

  6. #6
    SiriuslyLong is offline
    Guru
    SiriuslyLong's Avatar
    Joined: Jan 2009 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 3,560
    How much did each job cost? $185,000? Oh, but it's not about jobs is it?

    "We checked the White House report, and of the $666 billion stimulus total, 43 percent was spent on tax cuts for individuals and businesses; 19 percent went to state governments, primarily for education and Medicaid; and 13 percent paid for government benefits to individuals such as unemployment and food stamps.

    The remainder, about 24 percent, was spent on projects such as infrastructure improvement, health information technology and research on renewable energy."


    Money well spent, eh? The point is that we are left with the bill, and few tangible productive assets. My daughter gets a repaved road, yay.

  7. #7
    Havakasha is offline
    Legend
    Havakasha's Avatar
    Joined: Sep 2009 Posts: 5,358
    False again, but thats ok i expect it from you. Just one more example of Republican distortion. Maybe next time you should avoid buying hook, line and sinker into what the Republican leadership or Fox news or other right leaning sources tells you to believe. Maybe next time you will do a little research. Doubtful.

    I love your "independent, non party affiliate" postings. LMFAO
    You really should try to avoid simplistic formulas for how much money was spent
    per job. Its more complicated than that.
    Last edited by Havakasha; 08-21-2011 at 12:43 PM.

  8. #8
    Havakasha is offline
    Legend
    Havakasha's Avatar
    Joined: Sep 2009 Posts: 5,358
    Did Siriusly wrong ACTUALLY read this? If he had he might be a little bit embarassed at posting this article.
    I mean he says he is an independent minded "non-party affiliate". Any objective reading of his thread would call that claim into question.

    Rated False by Politifact:

    Boehner
    "POTUS’ economists: ‘Stimulus’ Has Cost $278,000 per job."

    John Boehner on Tuesday, July 5th, 2011 in a tweet on Twitter
    House Speaker John Boehner says Obama's economists figure stimulus cost at $278,000 per job
    False

    Republicans in Congress were not functioning independently of one another on their first workday after the Independence Day holiday.

    Shortly after noon on July 5, House Speaker John Boehner’s "tweeted" a July 3 blog posting from the conservative Weekly Standard’s website, labeling it "POTUS’ economists: ‘Stimulus’ Has Cost $278,000 per job."

    Around 4 p.m., the National Republican Congressional Committee followed suit with multiple press releases that used the same Weekly Standard blog item to target dozens of Democrats in Congress, including Ohio’s Betty Sutton. Its headline: "New Report Shows Dems’ Failed Stimulus Cost $278,000 Per Job As Economy Got Worse." It went onto claim that Sutton’s "government spending spree" "delivered little except skyrocketing debt owed to foreign countries like China."

    By 4:55 p.m., the National Republican Senatorial Committee had recycled the Weekly Standard blog posting to attack Ohio Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown. This time the claim was: "President Obama’s own top economists estimate that the Obama-Brown stimulus debacle cost taxpayers an average $278,000 per job."

    PolitiFact Ohio thought the concerted GOP effort made it worthy of a look. Since Boehner kicked it off on Twitter, we’ll use his tweet.

    The Weekly Standard blog item that spawned the statistic cites a July 1 report by the White House Council of Economic Advisers, which states the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act "saved or created between 2.4 and 3.6 million jobs as of the first quarter of 2011." It also tallies the sum of the stimulus bill’s outlays and tax cuts at $666 billion.

    The $278,000 per job figure doesn’t appear anywhere in the White House report. To come up with that number, the publication divided the $666 billion stimulus total by the low-end 2.4 million job estimate to come up with a dollars per job statistic that it rounded off to $278,000.

    The blog item contends this statistic "provides further evidence that President Obama’s ‘stimulus’ did very little, if anything, to stimulate the economy and a whole lot to stimulate the debt," and insists "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."

    After Republicans began to circulate the blog item, White House spokesman Jay Carney said its conclusions were "based on partial information and simply false analysis." White House spokeswoman Liz Oxhorn issued a statement that noted the Recovery Act bolstered infrastructure, education, and industries "that are critical to America’s long-term success and an investment in the economic future of America’s working families."

    The White House points out that Recovery Act dollars didn’t just fund salaries - as the blog item implies - it also funded numerous capital improvements and infrastructure projects.

    Lumping all costs together and classifying it as salaries produces an inflated figure.

    Furthermore, the publication created its statistic with the report’s low end jobs estimate. Had it instead gone with the 3.6 million job figure at the top end of the range, it would have come up with a smaller $185,000 per job figure.

    Republicans made a similar assertion in November 2009, using similar calculations to contend that the stimulus cost taxpayers more than $246,000 per job. Back then, they divided $160 billion in stimulus spending by 650,000 jobs that the White House estimated the measure had created or preserved. A "fact check" conducted at the time by the Associated Press called that math "satisfyingly simple but highly misleading."

    "Any cost-per-job figure pays not just for the worker, but for the material, supplies and that workers’ output - a portion of a road paved, patients treated in a health clinic, goods shipped form a factory floor, railroad tracks laid," the 2009 Associated Press item noted.

    The Weekly Standard claimed that the stimulus actually "has been working in reverse the last six months, causing the economy to shed jobs." It derives this conclusion from the fact that as of two quarters ago, the stimulus had added or saved just under 2.7 million jobs - or 288,000 more than it has now.

    Moody’s chief economist Mark Zandi says the Weekly Standard misinterpreted that data.

    "It’s not that ARRA [the stimulus] is now costing the economy jobs, it is that the economy is now creating jobs without ARRA’s help," Zandi told TPMDC. "This is exactly the objective of fiscal stimulus, namely to end recession and jump-start economic recovery."

    The day after the White House responded to the GOP’s dissemination of the Weekly Standard blog item, its author penned a defense that reiterates his claims. He says he never said that $278,000 per job went to salaries, but "rather that each job has cost taxpayers $278,000."

    Yet, his original item did say taxpayers would have come out $427 billion ahead if the government had simply "cut a $100,000 check to everyone whose employment was allegedly made possible by the ‘stimulus?"

    So where does that leave Boehner’s tweet that said "POTUS’ economists: ‘Stimulus’ Has Cost $278,000 per job."


    * The figure attributed to the president’s economists does not appear anywhere in the White House report.

    * Rather, the Weekly Standard attributed the number to economists at the White House after it made its own calculations and conclusions.

    * The methodology used to get that number was previously termed suspect because it lumps all costs associated with stimulus projects together as if they are wages, suggesting it would have been cheaper to just "cut a $100,000 check" to each person who found work as a result of the stimulus.


    On the Truth-O-Meter, we rate Boehner’s tweet (and the subsequent variations of his claim) as False.

  9. #9
    SiriuslyLong is offline
    Guru
    SiriuslyLong's Avatar
    Joined: Jan 2009 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 3,560
    Quote Originally Posted by Havakasha View Post
    False again, but thats ok i expect it from you. Just one more example of Republican distortion. Maybe next time you should avoid buying hook, line and sinker into what the Republican leadership or Fox news or other right leaning sources tells you to believe. Maybe next time you will do a little research. Doubtful.

    I love your "independent, non party affiliate" postings. LMFAO
    You really should try to avoid simplistic formulas for how much money was spent
    per job. Its more complicated than that.
    False again what?

    Yeap, it's complicated (liberalspeak for not understanding mathematics). When in doubt, "it's more complicated than that." LMFAO.

    More leftist crap from a rigid idealogue.

  10. #10
    Havakasha is offline
    Legend
    Havakasha's Avatar
    Joined: Sep 2009 Posts: 5,358
    "...WE CONCLUDED, THE COST-PER-JOB LEAVES THE MISIMPRESSION THAT THE STIMULUS MONEY
    WENT SOLELY FOR JOBS RATHER THAN A RANGE OF PROJECTS. ITS RATED FALSE."
    And for the last time, Politifact declares a lie to the notion that "obama's economists" said anything
    about the "278,000" figure. I dont understand why you buy some of these lies hook, line and sinker.
    Sorry if your SiMPLISTIC distortions are declared FALSE by Pollitifact and others. Yes its more COMPLICATED than you rightists want it to be. LMFAO. Grow up S&L.

    The Weekly Standard lied. This is the right wing Republcan source you often quote for your facts.

    "* The figure attributed to the president’s economists does not appear anywhere in the White House report.

    * Rather, the Weekly Standard attributed the number to economists at the White House after it made its own calculations and conclusions.

    * The methodology used to get that number was previously termed suspect because it lumps all costs associated with stimulus projects together as if they are wages, suggesting it would have been cheaper to just "cut a $100,000 check" to each person who found work as a result of the stimulus.

    On the Truth-O-Meter, we rate Boehner’s tweet (and the subsequent variations of his claim) as False."


    I love the fact that you published a FALSE premise for this thread and instead of acknowledging that the $278,000 figure is a lie from the Republican leadership you get all uppity and angry at me.
    Wacky. It wasnt a "rigid ideologue" that said you published a lie. Its was Politifact a non partisan organization that does its best to determine truth from falsehood.

    For the third time, read this and understand what you published here was false.

    One more time. False


    PolitiFact.com
    Powered by PolitiFact.com and Statesman.com

    The article:
    Boehner, Dewhurst and stimulus jobs

    By W. Gardner Selby
    Published on Wednesday, July 20th, 2011 at 12:18 p.m
    False
    Says President Barack Obama’s "own economists say the stimulus cost $278K per job ‘created.’ "

    David Dewhurst, Tuesday, July 5th, 2011.

    Ruling: False
    David Dewhurst and John Boehner aired similar claims. (Austin American-Statesman photo).

    Courtesy of our colleagues at PolitiFact Ohio, we learned of a flawed claim about the economic stimulus signed into law by President Barack Obama in 2009 that originated with Republicans in Congress. The claim’s targets included two Texas Democrats.

    All this happened before Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, who just declared his candidacy for the U.S. Senate, trod the same turf.

    Shortly after noon July 5, House Speaker John Boehner tweeted a July 3 blog posting from the conservative Weekly Standard’s website, labeling it "POTUS’ economists: ‘Stimulus’ Has Cost $278,000 per job." (POTUS stands for president of the United States.)

    Around 4 p.m., the National Republican Congressional Committee followed suit with multiple press releases that used the same Weekly Standard item to target dozens of Democrats in Congress including Reps. Henry Cuellar and Ruben Hinojosa of Texas. Its headline: "New Report Shows Dems’ Failed Stimulus Cost $278,000 Per Job As Economy Got Worse." It went onto claim that each targeted member’s "government spending spree" delivered "little except skyrocketing debt owed to foreign countries like China."

    And in Texas that day, Dewhurst said in a Twitter message: "What a nightmare! Obama's own economists say the stimulus cost $278K per job ‘created.’ "

    His comment was followed by a link to the Weekly Standard blog entry, which links to a White House report that, in fact, does not include the per-job figure. Also, we concluded, the cost-per-job claim leaves the misimpression that the stimulus money went solely for jobs rather than a range of projects. It’s rated False.
    Last edited by Havakasha; 08-22-2011 at 11:46 AM.

  11. Ad Fairy Senior Member

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •