33 states report on stimulus job creation.

[Elphaba]

Originally Posted by Palerider

Tell that to the State Employees that are without jobs because of states making budget cuts after your stimulus money...and lets not forget your obama said something like, if we don't pass this stimulus, unemployment will go to 9%....it passed and unemployment went higher.
Lets just keep passing kool aid around....

I looked up the statistics for the states, and it is very grim. All of them are in a crisis, laying off hundreds of employees, and it's only going to get worse. According to The Center on Policy and Budget Priorities:

Recession Continues to Batter State Budgets; State Responses Could Slow Recover



The worst recession since the 1930s has caused the steepest decline in state tax receipts on record. As a result, even after making very deep cuts, states ontinue to face large budget gaps. New shortfalls have opened up in the budgets of over half the states for the current fiscal year (FY 2010, which began July 1 in most states). In addition, initial indications are that states will face shortfalls as big as or bigger than they faced this year in the upcoming 2011 fiscal year. States will continue to struggle to find the revenue needed to support critical public services for a number of years.

• New gaps in 2010 budgets. An increasing number of states are struggling to keep their 2010 budgets in balance as the mid-point of the fiscal year approaches. Because revenues have fallen short of projections, mid-year shortfalls have opened up in 26 states — some of which have already addressed them — totaling $16 billion or 4 percent of these budgets.
  
  These new shortfalls are in addition to the gaps states closed when adopting their fiscal year 2010 budgets earlier this year. Counting both initial and mid-year shortfalls, 48 states have addressed or still face such shortfalls in their budgets for fiscal year 2010, totaling $178 billion or 26 percent of state budgets — the largest gaps on record.
• Additional large gaps for 2011. States’ fiscal problems will continue into the next fiscal year and likely beyond. Fiscal year 2011 gaps – both those still open and those already addressed — total $80 billion or 14 percent of budgets for the 35 states that have estimated the size of these gaps. These totals are likely to grow as revenues continue to deteriorate, and may well exceed $180 billion.
• Combined Gaps of $350 billion for 2010 and 2011. These numbers suggest that when all is said and done, states will have dealt with a total budget shortfall of at least $350 billion for 2010 and 2011. (This includes both gaps already closed and gaps projected for the future.)

However, The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which is part of the stimulus, is lessening the blow. Again, according to The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities:

The Role of Federal Assitance

Federal assistance is lessening the extent to which states need to take pro-cyclical actions that further harm the economy. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act enacted in February includes substantial assistance for states. The amount in ARRA to help states maintain current activities is about $135 billion to $140 billion over a roughly 2 ½-year period — or between 30 percent and 40 percent of projected state shortfalls. Most of this money is in the form of increased Medicaid funding and a “State Fiscal Stabilization Fund.” (There are also other streams of funding in the economic recovery act flowing through states to local governments or individuals, but these will not address state budget shortfalls.) This money has reduced the extent of state spending cuts and state tax and fee increases.

But it now appears likely the federal assistance will end before state budget gaps have abated. The Medicaid funds are scheduled to expire in December 2010, which is just halfway through the 2011 fiscal year in most states.[3]

States will have drawn down most of their State Fiscal Stabilization Fund allocations by then as well. So even though the 2011 budget gaps may well be larger than those for 2010, there will be less federal money available to close them. States are likely to respond with spending cuts and tax increases even larger than those that have already been enacted. Such measures in most states will take effect with the 2011 fiscal year — that is, in July 2010, thereby reducing aggregate demand and weakening the economy at a critical moment in its recovery.

A possibility would be for the federal government to reduce state budget gaps – and hence avert some spending cuts and/or tax increases — by phasing-out the Medicaid funds over the period during which state fiscal conditions are expected to still be problematic, rather than cutting them off in December 2010. The federal government could also provide additional assistance to states for education through the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund. Ideally, such action would be taken relatively soon, so that it can be factored into states’ budget decisions for fiscal year 2011.

But it now appears likely the federal assistance will end before state budget gaps have abated. The Medicaid funds are scheduled to expire in December 2010, which is just halfway through the 2011 fiscal year in most states. States will have drawn down most of their State Fiscal Stabilization Fund allocations by then as well. So even though the 2011 budget gaps may well be larger than those for 2010, there will be less federal money available to close them. States are likely to respond with spending cuts and tax increases even larger than those that have already been enacted. Such measures in most states will take effect with the 2011 fiscal year — that is, in July 2010, thereby reducing aggregate demand and weakening the economy at a critical moment in its recovery.

A possibility would be for the federal government to reduce state budget gaps – and hence avert some spending cuts and/or tax increases — by phasing-out the Medicaid funds over the period during which state fiscal conditions are expected to still be problematic, rather than cutting them off in December 2010. The federal government could also provide additional assistance to states for education through the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund. Ideally, such action would be taken relatively soon, so that it can be factored into states’ budget decisions for fiscal year 2011.

The CPBP has an extensive breakdown of the financial status of each state, including projected shortfalls and budgets. As I said above, the situation is very grim. I am shocked at how bad it is.

Elphaba

[bytor2112]

Nice quote from the Wall Street Journal.

I linked to it...did you read?

Actually it was used by a generation prior.

Oh well....still a very clever claim, don't you think?

Apparently Bush had no problem with his Department of Agriculture using the phrase. Neither did the Wall Street Journal. Especially this one:

Just as bogus....maybe it didn't get criticism because Bush wasn't using to claim job growth. Dunno, still bogus, regardless of who says it. Is it possible that jobs are saved...sure.....but

[bytor2112]

Originally Posted by Elphaba

What do you mean by "keep people in bad situations"?

If you're talking about welfare, I have explained before that a person can only receive Tempoary Assitance of Needy Families (TANF) for a maximum of two years, or five years under special circumstances, during which they must be either looking for work, or in a training program. After that, they will not receive any more assistance, so they are not kept in bad situations.

People can no longer stay on welfare indefinitely. Additionally, the "welfare queen" slur uttered by Reagan is a myth, and most people, the majority of them women, only stayed on welfare long enough to get on their feet.

If you were talking about something else, would you let me know?

Elphaba

My complaint over government assistance is that it doesn't go far enough. I wish it was much more comprehensive and really helped solve the problems so many face. TANF BARELY sustains the recipient and there families. I spoke with an elderly lady a while back that lives on social security.....maybe $850.00 per month...and she applied for food stamps (not sure of official name) and was offered $18.00 dollars per month.

I am not slandering those who receive aid.....I just wish the aid was more substantial. Rather than five years of TANF....why not five years of TANF income rolled into one? Rather than a subsidized apartment (section 8) for years, why not opportunity for ownership? Make sense? I am advocating for an enormous increase in aid to the truly needy.

My complaint with government has more to do with waste than anything else. My mother has struggled most of her life....so I am very aware of what she and others like her go through. Horrible! Her fault? To some degree, yes. If there was less waste and I know you probably disagree, but the stimulus bill and omnibus is laden with waste (yes Bush and well before wasted too) the issue of how to pay for health care or making assistance much more substantial wouldn't be as much an issue. Smaller and more effective government.

[bytor2112]

Originally Posted by Elphaba

I had already read it. Even though I'm a Democratic who detests people in this country so much (per JAG), I still like to stay informed, even if it is conservative publication.

Elph

You know Elph....I think when the political rhetoric is put aside, the people that make up the two major parties share most of the same goals in life. We have just allowed politicians to set and define the agenda.....politicians that are more interested in power and a future vote than actually making responsible choices on behalf of the those they are supposed to represent. Such is the nature of the mess in DC.

[talisyn]

I love all the blame going around. If the stimulus bill hadn't passed people would be clamoring for blood because our president didn't get it passed, and y'all know it. Our president, the one term senator from Illinois who did not cause this problem is akin to someone trying to plug up a leaking dam while a bunch of hecklers shout insults from the top.

Idaho has a rainy day fund worth quite a lot of money that Gov. Butch Otter was not going to touch until the Huns were at the foothills. He was going to slash education, state employees and hours, and a host of other services (including WIC and state health services like adult rehabilitation and drug courts (hugely successful, btw)) and when the federal money became available he famously decided to not ask for any until certain members of the state legislature threatened mutiny. So yes, the stimulus bill saved a number of jobs the state of Idaho could have saved itself if the rainy day fund had been tapped. Does that mean the money wasn't needed?

[bytor2112]

I love all the blame going around. If the stimulus bill hadn't passed people would be clamoring for blood because our president didn't get it passed, and y'all know it. Our president, the one term senator from Illinois who did not cause this problem is akin to someone trying to plug up a leaking dam while a bunch of hecklers shout insults from the top.

Those on your side would have been clamoring for blood. The bill was a huge payoff and a waste. He could be my hero if he were to repeal the bill now, rather than continue to spend it in the future on more wasteful nonsense. Want to grow the economy Mr. President? Give people a tax holiday for a year.....about the same amount as the stimulus bill and make permanent the tax cuts that are set to sunset in 2010....which will be a tax hike for everyone...bottom rate goes from 10% to 15%...everyone gets dinged.

[Just_A_Guy]

Originally Posted by Elphaba

I had already read it. Even though I'm a Democratic who detests people in this country so much (per JAG), I still like to stay informed, even if it is conservative publication.

Elph

Elphaba, I hope I've never said that--it certainly is not my belief. If I've made a post suggesting as much, please direct me to the post and I'll happily retract it with a public apology.

--JAG

[Elphaba]

Originally Posted by Just_A_Guy

Elphaba, I hope I've never said that--it certainly is not my belief. If I've made a post suggesting as much, please direct me to the post and I'll happily retract it with a public apology.

--JAG

It appears I owe you the public apology.

Let me explain. I had copied your latest post to me on the "Obama's Healthcare Plan" thread, and then pasted it into my word processor so I could prepare a response.

I don't know what happened, but the document in the word processor has the words:

These Democrats detests the people of this country so much. They continue to look down upon us with disgust.

However, when I just looked for this in your post, it is not there.

So I am very confused as to how this came to be in my word processing document.

I am also extremely sorry for saying you said this, and will delete that post.

Elphaba

[Just_A_Guy]

No worries, Elphaba. I just wanted to make sure I hadn't been misbehaving behind my back!

That's odd about the word processor, though. I did a Google search on that precise text and got a link to Alan Colmes' website, here (quoting a comment offered on a conservative website here); both sites deal with the Pelosi/swastika kerfluffle. Perhaps that's the source? (By the way, Colmes' website demonstrates that at least the Fort Collins photo was contemporaneous with--or predated--Pelosi's comments, so nice catch there!)

[boyando]

Originally Posted by Elphaba

According to both articles, part of the problem is recipients don’t know how to determine if a job counts as “saved,” or not. I have no idea what instructions the government provided, but perhaps a more precise directive needs to be disseminated.

It is absolutely ridiculous to count tenured professors. It is also offensive because it appears, at least to me, that the university’s administration purposely chose to included tenured profs to make the numbers look better than they were. Did they think we’re so stupid we wouldn’t notice?

I think it is important to recognize there were still thousands of jobs that can legitimately be counted as saved by the stimulus.

Elphaba

The problem is still the same. We are being lied too.

All those who signed onto the "stimulus package" said that it was targeted at small business, were our President said that 65% of our Job market is employed. In your chart and in the world around me, I just don't see small business's getting a break.

Hate tax cut's if you will, but at least they go to everybody and not just to certain industries, chosen by the all seeing and all knowing government.

I will save you all the trouble. I know that when you have a tax cut of 3% for everyone, some one who makes around $100,000 a year, and has a tax obligation of about $25,000, has his/her tax burden lightened by $3,000, were as some one like me who struggles to survive at, lets just say $50,000, only gets a tax break of $1,500.

That's tax breaks for the rich............right?

Only (with out giving my exact income, etc...) my federal tax obligation was around $5,000 last year. That means a 3% cut would have netted me a 30% cut in my tax obligation. The poor sap (sarcasm) who made a $100,000, would have had his/her tax obligation lightened by %12. Don't bother to look at the 30% verses 12%. Focus only on the the fact that he/she who made twice as much, got twice the tax cut.

These are not exact figures (here again, I don't want anyone trying to figure out how little money I make) and because everyone has different write offs, it can't hold true for everyone's income. Basically, when I did my taxes last year, for fun, I put in some fantasy income numbers, just too see what would happen to my tax obligation.

You said "I think it is important to recognize there were still thousands of jobs that can legitimately be counted as saved by the stimulus". Because you are one of my two most favorite sisters, I think that I will let you give that statement another shot. Spending billions of dollars to save thousands of jobs, doesn't make a whole lot of since. Not even to a liberal.

I have no problem excepting the fact that jobs are being created or saved by the stimulus.You can't spend money and not give some one a job. But the President announced (through a vice Presidents aid) that the stimulus saved or created one million jobs. Unemployment has gone up by three million, during the time the stimulus package has been in affect.

In my opinion, and I know that I will be mocked and laughed at for saying it, is to once again spread the money around to everyone, via tax cuts. But we will, if we want to or not, let our government decide who will get what grant for cash. And though I don't want to be right, every time I here that we are going to have 10% unemployment, and no one see's that number going down before the middle of next year (and that date keeps moving in the wrong direction) I can't see a end too this problem.

I would really like to believe that the economy is on the rebound, but until my friends and family, who are out of work, get a job, I am not going to through a end of hard times party.