The stimulus package was a $1.5 trillion package of government spending and tax increases that President Barack Obama signed into law on November 22, 2010.
The package was intended to help spur economic growth and boost jobs, as well as to help fund the nation’s infrastructure.
However, many economists have argued that the package has failed to do either.
A new study conducted by University of Michigan economics professor Christopher Isenberg targets some of the criticisms of the bill.
Isenberg analyzed the spending and revenues of various stimulus packages from the 1960s to the mid-2000s and found that, in terms of economic impact, they were all pretty bad.
Isenburg found that spending on the stimulus packages actually increased by less than 1% of GDP during the four years they were in effect, and that the stimulus programs had very little effect on employment or the economy overall.
“It’s true that the spending was modest compared to the inflationary impact of other spending in the 1950s and 1960s,” Isenberg told Business Insider.
“But it was not nearly as significant as many economists expected.
So what is wrong with the stimulus bill?”
In my view, the stimulus legislation has been an abject failure.
In fact, it was a major factor in the recession,” he added.”
If you look at the data, the economic impact of stimulus spending was so insignificant that, when you add it up over time, you’re still not going to see a substantial impact on employment.
“In fact it would actually have increased it. “
If the stimulus were to have produced the same amount of economic growth as the other spending that was approved by Congress, it would have actually caused about a 0.5% decrease in unemployment,” he said.
“In fact it would actually have increased it.
The stimulus program didn’t do much to improve the economic situation.
Moreover, even if it had increased unemployment, it wouldn’t have had a large impact on inflation.”
In his new study, Isenberg argues that there is a simple reason why the stimulus program did not have a major impact on job creation and economic growth.
It was actually designed to increase the number of jobs in the first place, not boost the number that were available to fill them.
That’s because, according to the report, it did not create enough jobs to create enough demand for those jobs.
The report also found that in the four-year period that the economy was hit with the bill, unemployment actually went up.
Instead, it increased because of the government spending.
Isenberg explained that the increase in unemployment was caused by the fact that businesses stopped hiring people because they were worried about the stimulus.
The stimulus package also caused job losses because it increased the number, not the quality of, government subsidies.
These changes were not supposed to happen, but they did, causing the economy to contract even more than it otherwise would have.
There is also a question about whether the stimulus measures actually boosted the economy, or if the stimulus had a negative effect on jobs and growth.
“The stimulus did not significantly improve the U.S. economy in the period it was approved,” Isenburg said.
And even if the economic stimulus had caused a small increase in the economy in any given year, it still would not have created a huge amount of jobs or growth.
In addition, it’s also possible that the government stimulus packages created jobs by reducing unemployment, rather than increasing it.
This is because there is no clear evidence that the programs increased the unemployment rate.
According to a recent report, economists at the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the stimulus program would have only raised the unemployment level by about 2.5 percentage points in 2020.
However, this estimate does not include the impact of the fact the stimulus was not meant to increase employment.
Even if the bill had created more jobs, that would not necessarily have created enough to offset the costs that were being imposed by the stimulus, and the costs would have been passed onto consumers.
Another study conducted earlier this year by Catherine Mascaro and James Anderson of the Urban Institute estimated that the cost of the $1,200 tax on net worth to taxpayers was $1 trillion in 2020, and it would cost the U,S.
Treasury about $3.2 trillion to offset those benefits.
If the costs were passed on to consumers, that’s an additional $1 or $2 trillion.
While the economic effects of the package may have been positive for some individuals, they would still have lost out on the benefits.
Isenberg, a professor of economics at the University of Michigan, said that he thinks there are a number of other factors that contributed to the stimulus bills failures.
“[In the 1960] and ’70s, there was a