How Many Jobs Will Obama's Stimulus Create?

None.  

1, my son will have to do some work around the house so he can earn some of that money. That's what he wants.

LOL, well at least your teaching your kid that he has to work in order to get something in return.... you could just be like the typical parents that just give everything for free! DAMN YOU FOR TEACHING YOU KIDS GOOD HABBITS! Child services may very this as a form of child abuse

Millions

Care to explain how?

Because BO said it would Duh!

Well I know of at least two. He came up with that Technology cabinet position, right? I suppose that person will need a secretary - so that's two. Wonder how much salary the taxpayer will be giving them?

Sure, but after Brad's explained how none will be created (since he posted first ) !

okay okay I get the whole road building thing... but here is the problem with it... what happens 3 years from now or so when the roads have all been paved over twice? what do you do then with these workers? you are back to square one without really fixing anything but yet put the country further in debt.... and also put a ton more people on Gov help... but I guess that is okay because the Dems for some reason want the civilians to depend on the government....

It would probably help to define 'job'.

For instance, let's take welfare (or whatever it is called nowadays). As far as I know, there are requirements for eligibility. Suppose that the terms of welfare were changed such that it became a Government 'job' with the work required being meeting those requirements?

Bingo ... instant jobs.

By then the economy should have recovered and so there would then be jobs available for those workers (although retraining etc. may be necessary in some cases depending on where there are skill shortages)

O really? what jobs are gonna be created? We still outsourcing most manuafacturing jobs and only providing services like we have for so long now?

Problem is we need more manufacturing jobs in the US and need to start making stuff in house... why is this soooo bad? Being less dependant on other countries to make stuff for us would be nice... and hey that creates jobs.... I am sorry but nice new roads are great.... if only people can afford to drive on them.

And you want to put money on this that the econ should be recovered by that time? I mean its going to take a heck of alot more than just building roads to fix this mess... and this is only gonna cost a trillion dollars ...and what kind of skills will these people get building roads... last time i checked its a high demand profession

YOu did not ask brad first, you were.  Chicken?

Because if other countries can do it more efficiently and trade with you, you end up worse off by trying to produce it yourself.

Infrastructure such as roads will help boost trade and business, as well as being beneficial for the general population. They're an investment in the future rather than the short term, which is a very good idea - you provide the large injection to boost the economy in the short term, while the benefits of that large injection are felt in the long term, which helps make the impact of the debt repayment (assuming you've borrowed the money) far less severe.

Yes, based on past recessions I think the most likely outcome is that this one will be over in 3 years time.

Showing your maturity yet again I see Doc...

well sorry to break it to you Maud I see your staying out of the posted area with the 20 things about the "bailout" I like to see you defend that. It shows that there is nothing gov can do that is cost effient.

On another note its good to see that you dont mind if countries like china have the US by the balls. Thats great. so when do you think china is gonna cash in that IOU from the US? because I am sure the US would make a great east china wouldnt you say>?

You don't seem to understand how trade works. Country A gives good X to country B. Country B gives country A good Y in return is a rough summation. Both countries benefit as a result, and restricting that trade wouldn't be in either country's economic interest. If China started to play political games with the goods it provides, not only will the US then just look to other countries goods as alternatives, but they may return the games on the chinese, meaning both countries end up hurt. I would go into a more detailed explanation of comparative advantages, but something tells me there wouldn't be much point.

Government can't "create" jobs because it takes its money from those who are better at making jobs. So you always end up with a net loss of jobs when the government does something.

I swear its Ms polosi here I mean he/she defends EVERYTHING .... kinda scary

The money's borrowed, i.e. the government is borrowing the money as opposed to taking it (at least, it's not taking it from anyone at the present), it then spends it on various things, creating demand. That demand causes the firms to hire more people to fill the jobs to meet with the increased demand. Because the economy is in a recession the jobs and capacity is there, and hence you don't just cause an inflationary spiral. As a result if done correctly you can avoid or greatly reduce the negative effects of the recession, and then when the economy is back on track you can pay back the debt from some of the growth.

As to the millions, if looking at the number of jobs either saved or created in comparison to the situation resulting from the alternative (of no stimulus), given the sums of money we're talking about I think it's quite feasible that millions of jobs will be created (although it does require such a definition of created in order to reach those sort of figures).