Facts don't lie -- Stimulus Still Cost Taxpayers $278,000 Per Job

Obama and the people in the White House are objecting when the figure $278,000 cost per job is used to say the person isn't making that much money.  Did the current occupant of the White House pass a basic math course or does he just make comments up out of thin air?  Either way the answer is of course the person is not getting paid $278,000 for the job he is doing.  I am sitting here thinking are they that dumb to not understand the figures or are they doing it on purpose?  The jury is out on that one.

Not a math genius by any stretch of the imagination but this one is simple -- take the taxpayer dollars spent on the stimulus, divide it by the number of jobs created, and you have how much it costs per job to create that job.  Now the White House in spinning out of control while coming after The Weekly Standard.  They cannot even remember what Obama said when he had to have the stimulus.  Now the states and local governments are shedding the jobs saved or created because there is no money to pay the people since the stimulus money has run out but that seems to be getting ignored by Obama.  Is that why he wanted a second stimulus boondoggle so it wouldn't come out how many jobs saved are now being shed by local

The boondoggle by Obama is one big FAIL!

Despite White House Protests, Stimulus Still Cost Taxpayers $278,000 Per Job 

Why does the White House have a problem with basic math? 

10:26 AM, Jul 6, 2011 • By JEFFREY H. ANDERSON

On Sunday, I noted that an estimate from President Obama’s own economists shows that the economic “stimulus” has cost taxpayers $278,000 per job and that, without the “stimulus,” 288,000 additional jobs would have been added or saved over the past six months. Yesterday, the White House fired back. But its response further confirms that a large portion of “stimulus” spending has done nothing whatsoever to create jobs — and that the “stimulus” is now working in reverse, causing the economy to shed jobs.

The White House tries to obscure these condemning facts by claiming (1) that I misleadingly “cited a 2.4 million job figure instead of the 2.4 million to 3.6 million jobs listed in the White House report”; (2) that the stimulus “didn’t just fund salaries”; (3) that the legislation “was more than a measure to create and save jobs”; (4) and that my “math is flawed.” Let me address each of these assertions in sequence. 

First, ABC White House correspondent Jake Tapper writes that I used “the low end of the estimate” released by Obama’s Council of Economic Advisors (CEA). Likewise, he adds that “White House officials…questioned why the Weekly Standard would use the lower figure from the projection of the number of jobs created.” I did not, however, use the “low end of the estimate” or the “lower figure from the projection.” Rather, the CEA released two separate estimates — two separate projections — and I explicitly noted which one I was citing. The estimate I cited does not say that the “stimulus” added or saved between 2.4 and 3.6 million jobs. Instead, it says that the “stimulus” has added or saved 2.392 million jobs (see Table 3). Is the White House now suggesting that this estimate — released by Obama’s handpicked team of economists — isn’t credible or worthy of citing?

Even if one were to use the rosier of the two undoubtedly rosy CEA estimates (the one that says the “stimulus” has added or saved 3.6 million jobs) that would still come out to $185,000 per job. Moreover, both estimates show that the “stimulus” is now causing the economy to shed jobs — both show that the economy would now be generating job growth at a faster rate if the Democrats hadn’t passed the “stimulus.” 

Second, the White House responds to my piece by claiming that “stimulus” spending “didn’t just fund salaries but also went to the actual costs of building things.” I never said, however, that the $278,000 per job has gone to salaries. Rather, I said that each job has cost taxpayers $278,000. 

Third, the White House says that the stimulus “was more than a measure to create and save jobs; it was also an investment” in things “critical to America’s long-term success.” But back in early 2009, Obama’s first head of the CEA, Christina Romer, said that the “stimulus” was a way to keep unemployment below 8 percent. By mid-2011, she predicted, unemployment would be below 7 percent. It’s now 9.1 percent. 

Excerpt:  Read More at The Weekly Standard  

With all the spinning going on by Obama and the few economists he has left no wonder so many economists have left and don't want to be tainted by this Administration.  Obama does have the perfect dupe in Carney for press secretary who spins and lies with the best of them never once seeming to mind that what he is saying makes no sense.