Only $100 billion of the $787 billion stimulus package passed nine months ago has actually been spent by the federal government so far, with another $90 billion of stimulus coming in the form of tax reductions, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office reported Monday evening. That leaves three quarters of the package -- and its stimulative effects -- yet to come.

 

Slow as that pace may seem, it's in line with initial CBO estimates.

 

But much of the spending hasn't had the full impact it could, the report says, because "it appears that stimulus funds substituted for some spending from regular appropriations."

 

Despite the limitations, the CBO estimates that between 600,000 and 1.6 million people were employed in the third quarter of 2009 who otherwise would not have been. The spending and tax cuts raised the Gross Domestic Product by somewhere between 1.2 and 3.2 percent, it found, and reduced unemployment by 0.3 to 0.9 percent.

 

Full article is here...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/30/s...o_n_374729.html

Obviously the stimulus bill would help in the short term, its the long term ramifications that have people wondering.

 

For how much I support the general idea of the stimulus, this hardly amounts to a declaration of victory.

Only $100 billion of the $787 billion stimulus package passed nine months ago has actually been spent by the federal government so far, with another $90 billion of stimulus coming in the form of tax reductions, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office reported Monday evening. That leaves three quarters of the package -- and its stimulative effects -- yet to come.

 

Slow as that pace may seem, it's in line with initial CBO estimates.

 

But much of the spending hasn't had the full impact it could, the report says, because "it appears that stimulus funds substituted for some spending from regular appropriations."

 

Despite the limitations, the CBO estimates that between 600,000 and 1.6 million people were employed in the third quarter of 2009 who otherwise would not have been. The spending and tax cuts raised the Gross Domestic Product by somewhere between 1.2 and 3.2 percent, it found, and reduced unemployment by 0.3 to 0.9 percent.

 

Full article is here...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/30/s...o_n_374729.html

 

 

Has unemployment decreased since the stimulus passed? Or are they saying unemployment would have been .3 to .9% worse? Again how do we measure that?

the report's analysis, is saying that the unemployment rate would be 10.5-11.1% had the $100 billion not been spent.

the report's analysis, is saying that the unemployment rate would be 10.5-11.1% had the $100 billion not been spent.

 

 

I'm curious what they'll say in 6 months when it IS 10.5 11.0%.

stay tuned.