dr. mark zandy and dr. alan blinder of the federal reserve completed a study last year that measured the impact of federal actions on shoring up the economy. here is a key quote from their report. we find that its effects on real gdp, jobs and inflation are huge and probably averted what could have been called depression 2.0. when all is said and done the financial and fiscal policies would have cost taxpayers a substantial sum but not nearly as much as most had feared and not nearly as much as policymakers have not acted at all. the comprehensive policy response saved the economy from another depression, we estimate they were well worth their cost. the next chart shows their estimate of the number of jobs we would have had without federal response. it shows we would have had 8.1 million fewer jobs in the second quarter of 2010 if we had not had the federal response. we see a similar picture in the unemployment rate. according to doctors and the and doctor blinder's findings we did not have the federal resp

according to dr. zandi and dr. blinder's findings, if we had not had the federal response, the unemployment rate would have been 15% in the second quarter of 2010 and would have continued rising to 16.2% in the fourth quarter of 2010. looking forward, it is clear there are further steps that can be taken to help shore up the recovery in the near term. cbo's analysis looks at some of these steps and determines which would provide the greatest bang for the buck. in spurring economic growth and job creation. here are cbo's key findings. on the upper end of the scale, it shows that policies like extending unemployment insurance and an employer payroll tax cut give you a higher impact on gdp for each dollar spent. on the bottom end of the scale, cbo once again found that extending the bush era tax cuts provide a much lower impact on gdp for each dollar spent. it also found that a repatriation tax holiday provides very little bang for the buck. i look forward to hearing more about these findings from director elmendorf.

according to dr. zandi and dr. blinder, if we had not had the federal response, the unemployment rate would have been 15% in the second quarter of 2010, it would have continued rising to 16.2% in the fourth quarter of 2010. it is clear that there further steps that could be taken to help shore up the recovery in the near-term. cbo's analysis looks as some of the steps and determines which would provide -- which would provide the greatest bang for the buck. here are the key findings. on the upper end of the scale, policies like and extending unemployment insurance and payroll tax cuts give you a higher impact on gdp for each dollar spent. on the bottom end of the scale, cbo once again found that extending the bush era tax cuts provide a much lower impact on gdp for each dollar spent. it also found that the repatriation tax holiday provides very little bang for the buck. i look forward to hearing more about these findings from director elmendorf. to be clear, there is nothing contradictory about pursuing near-term ec

dr. mark zandy and dr. alan blinder, former vice chairman of the federal reserve, completed a study last year that measured the impact of federal actions in shoring up the economy. here is the key quote from their report. we find that its effects on real gdp growth are huge and could have averted what could be called depression 2.0. it will have cost taxpayers a substantial sum, but not nearly as much as most had feared and not nearly as much as policymakers -- as if policymakers had not acted at all. the comprehensive policies repulse the response saved the economy from another recession, and we estimate that were well worth their cost. this next chart shows the estimate of the number of jobs we would have had without the federal response. it shows that we would have had 8.1 million fewer jobs in the second quarter of 2010 if we had not had the federal response. we see a similar picture in the unemployment rate. according to dr. zandy and dr. blinder's findings, the unemployment rate would have been 15% in

dr. zandy to 3.9% growth. they revised that to 1.6%. i do not agree that there are no contradictions between borrowing and taxing to spend today and the problems that have gotten this country into the fix we are in as i see it. we are in a long-term financial difficulty as a result of debt. the government assumed a huge amount of private debt. we had a much bigger deleveraging process to go through, and we are not going to see the growth week -- we would like to see, so i would oppose adding more debt. i think nothing could be simpler. nothing could be more basic. and under the plan the president has proposed -- $450 billion in borrowing and spending in the near term, plus a $450 billion tax increase, i do not believe that is going to be a 10-year benefit for the economy. i would be delighted to hear your view on this, and i do appreciate the fact that you predicted, when we passed the first $800 billion stimulus package -- you predicted that in the short run, there would be some benefit, but over 10 years, you predicted there would be