There Is Little Correlation Between Stimulus Spending And Unemployment Rates

There Is Little Correlation Between Stimulus Spending And Unemployment Rates

Rob Port
Sayanythingblog.com
September 9, 2010

The liberals told us that the stimulus deficit spending would create jobs. When that didn’t happen, they suggested that it has saved jobs and that our recession would have been a lot worse without the spending.

But when you look at the facts, it becomes clear that there is no correlation at all between unemployment rates and stimulus spending. Which is a point Veronica de Rugy makes in Bloomberg today:

With a few exceptions, the data show little correlation between the level of unemployment and stimulus spending. In fact, the opposite is true. The federal government has given far fewer stimulus dollars to states with high unemployment than it has to states with low unemployment.

Here is a chart that compares the five states with the highest and lowest unemployment rates and the amount of stimulus money per capita:

State Unemployment Rate Stimulus/capita

Nevada 14.3 percent $561.55
Michigan 13.1 percent $648.91
California 12.3 percent $546.34
Rhode Island 11.9 percent $164.83
Florida 11.5 percent $475.67

Vermont 6.0 percent $522.42
New Hampshire 5.8 percent $852.53
Nebraska 4.7 percent $591.17
South Dakota 4.4 percent $1,084.73
North Dakota 3.6 percent $1,059.95

The Obama administration was wildly successful if its objective was to spend a lot of money in a short amount of time. Whether that money has done or will do anything for the people that need it most has proven far more elusive.

“Elusive” is too kind. The idea that the stimulus has done anything for this country is a fairy tale.

Anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of basic economics could have predicted that the so-called "Stimulus" would do nothing of the sort. And when you couple this massive misappropriation of the taxpayers dollars with a President, administration, and House and Senate leadership that are in an open war against the private sector, even a complete moron could have predicted the economic debacle we are now witnessing.

Obama and and his minions on the Hill have not the slightest interest in doing anything that history has proven as effective at reviving a battered economy. Why? Well, because that would mean there would have to be a shifting of power from the public sector to the private sector. And meanwhile the mainstream media myrmidons are running cover for this President as he continues his all out assault on free-market capitalism and the private sector.

Can you even imagine what the headlines and lead stories on the evening news broadcasts would look like if it were a Republican in the White House with a Congress dominated by Republicans, with an economy that has been moribund as long as this one has been?

Hell, even when unemployment was at 5% the mainstream media were relentlessly pillorying Bush for a "jobless" recovery.

It is just breathtaking how obvious the media's bias is, and yet still liberals would deny this unbelievably obvious fact.

dblboggie wrote:Anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of basic economics could have predicted that the so-called "Stimulus" would do nothing of the sort. And when you couple this massive misappropriation of the taxpayers dollars with a President, administration, and House and Senate leadership that are in an open war against the private sector, even a complete moron could have predicted the economic debacle we are now witnessing.

I have n college education and i was certain that this thing wasn't going to work. I was doing my own homework on the internet and not via opinion pages either. I had to scour congressmen and other gov't web sites relating to this bill. It was infuriating on how the media wasn't even reporting on it prior to it's passage when many knew exactly what this "stimulus" bill was going to be.

On the outside chance that it would've worked, i was more than happy to give credit where it was due and was prepared to do so.

dblboggie wrote:Obama and and his minions on the Hill have not the slightest interest in doing anything that history has proven as effective at reviving a battered economy. Why? Well, because that would mean there would have to be a shifting of power from the public sector to the private sector. And meanwhile the mainstream media myrmidons are running cover for this President as he continues his all out assault on free-market capitalism and the private sector.

I posted a video yesterday of comparisons between JFK and Obama, how their speeches were similar but how their approach to the economic situation was glaringly different. The pure fact that JFK reduced the top tax rate from 90% to 70% which allowed the economy to have a boom is undeniable. Reagan dropped it from 70% to 28% and it rebounded with a vengeance. But this sad bunch wants to allow them to expire. Un-frigging-real. My uncle (a Dem) said to me over lunch today that he can't believe how dumb this president is..... and he voted for him.

dblboggie wrote:Can you even imagine what the headlines and lead stories on the evening news broadcasts would look like if it were a Republican in the White House with a Congress dominated by Republicans, with an economy that has been moribund as long as this one has been?

Oh man, can ya?

dblboggie wrote:Hell, even when unemployment was at 5% the mainstream media were relentlessly pillorying Bush for a "jobless" recovery.

I remember that very clearly like it was yesterday. 5.6% unemployment after 9/11 and Bush was slammed almost nightly on network news.

dblboggie wrote:It is just breathtaking how obvious the media's bias is, and yet still liberals would deny this unbelievably obvious fact.

They can deny it all they want. Daily, i get proof in my e-mail of top things that happened news-wise the day before and how the media twists things. 90% of the stuff is legit and the other is garbage. I watch ABC News each night and can post a running joke on how things are twisted. It's unreal. But then we hear whining about "Faux New" on a weekly basis.