• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama’s Economists: ‘Stimulus’ Has Cost $278,000 per Job

Badmutha said:
$278,000 per job..........

......not enough to get a peep of outrage from the Left......some of them still sing their PORKULUS praises to boot.....

$500,000 per job....?

$1,000,000 per job....?

$ One Billion dollars.....per job......?

....I wonder what amount it would take for Democrats to show just a little outrage......maybe question their political beliefs in the complete lie and utter fraud that is Liberalism.
.
.
.
Click to expand...

Simple question, how much is a job worth? All games aside, what number would you accept?
 
Gill said:
I never said they would. You are battling a straw man.

The topic of this thread is the absurd cost of the STIMULUS PACKAGE passed by Obama and the Dems in Congress.

If you wish to discuss the topic of the thread, go ahead and I'll respond. I will not respond any longer to your lame attempts to bait people into off-topic discussions. .
Click to expand...

Again, address the point you jumped in on. Discussions are fluid, they move, and if you are paying attention, it is not unreasonable to expect you to address the point and not your pretend point.
 
Ockham said:
So you have no rebuttal other than "it's stupid". How can anyone argue with that? :lamo
Click to expand...

...Liz Ozhorn, a White House spokesman for the stimulus bill, said that the Weekly Standard report “is based on partial information and false analysis. The Recovery Act was more than a measure to create and save jobs; it was also an investment in American infrastructure, education and industries that are critical to America’s long-term success and an investment in the economic future of America’s working families. Thanks to the Recovery Act, 110 million working families received a tax cut through the Making Work Pay tax credit, over 110,000 small businesses received critical access to capital through $27 billion in small business loans and more than 75,000 projects were started nationwide to improve our infrastructure, jump-start emerging industries and spur local economic development. The nonpartisan CBO has confirmed that the Recovery Act delivered as promised, lowering the unemployment rate by as much as 2 percent, boosting GDP by as much as 4 percent and creating and saving as many as 3.6 million jobs."​

$278K per Stimulus Job? White House Says No. - Political Punch
 
Deuce said:
Psst. Operating a particular employee costs more than just their salary.

One could say it costs a $100 million to employ two airline pilots, right? They need a plane. You might pay a construction worker a decent salary but you also need to purchase supplies and equipment for him to do his job. The money going to purchase those supplies and equipment doesn't evaporate, there's a ripple effect. Purchasing the $100 million aircraft creates lots of jobs in our airline pilot scenario.
Click to expand...

Not to mention that the money that the employees spend directly create jobs. I did point this out earlier in a similar thread and none the opposing side took a bite. If we account for those, including the relevant state income, sales and federal taxes upon such income and subsequent spending, the cost per job created/saved goes down quite considerably. The problem is computing this is kind of a lot of work and economists like every other human are lazy. The only way Weekly Standard's numbers hold up if no one taxed those jobs and the people in those saved jobs spent no money and put it under the bed away from the financial sector.
 
When are Liberals going to learn that their Messiah is a Pariah to the economy.

$278,000 per job fits right into Obamas usual idiocy like the $28,000 plus it cost foe each of the Toyotas sold during Caah for Clunkers.

Turns out the CLUNKER is Obama.
 
pbrauer said:
Holy cow who made this asinine calculation, some kid from grammar school? Where are supplies and material factored in. Also, the value of the output.
Click to expand...

I'm far more interested in the indirect job creation/saving.

The idiotic assumption underlying Zimmer's stupid argument is that those who had jobs created/saved incurred no taxes and spent no money. Now, I don't know where he's from, but people I know spend money merely to eat and house themselves, both often incur taxes in some form. Therefore, the base assumption which ends at the saved job itself is rather idiotic as it ignores basic human behavior.

We know for a fact that when Defense industries get huge contracts, they pick up additional employees and increase raw material orders. Those new employees then spend money as normal folk do. The indirect impact of that spending either preserves jobs or creates new ones. This is basic concept of economic multipliers.

What is super amusing is that Zimmer's argument effectively says multipliers don't exist. While people like him argue that tax cuts expand the economy because people have more money to spend, thus creating layers of new activity. He's basically denying multipliers exists while in other threads promoting them as why tax cuts work.

Finding people who are internally consistent is becoming quite difficult.
 
Councilman said:
When are Liberals going to learn that their Messiah is a Pariah to the economy.

$278,000 per job fits right into Obamas usual idiocy like the $28,000 plus it cost foe each of the Toyotas sold during Caah for Clunkers.

Turns out the CLUNKER is Obama.
Click to expand...
:rofl
You don't know what pariah means, do you?
 
At least he created jobs.... The last GOP President lost the most job since the depression....
 
PeteEU said:
At least he created jobs.... The last GOP President lost the most job since the depression....
Click to expand...

Don't forget that under Clinton the Congress was mostly republican, while under Bush the Congress was mostly Democratic. Secondly, it has kept dropping under Obama's policies who were supposed to regain job growth. The stimulus could have been done much more efficiently.

Also, it's not true, because the number of employed increased slightly under Bush, but has declined under Obama. But the performance of job creation during 2000 - 2011 have been miserable. What we care more about is participation rate, which has declined since 2000.

workforce-37031260843.jpeg
 
Last edited:
I'm still amazed so many think government is the answer. Only government will fix the economy and create jobs.
 
but that was the whole point of the stimulus, silly

LOL!

qe, anyone?

2.7 trillion dollars worth?
 
Government doesn't create jobs, every attempt to costs us more private sector jobs.
 
Lachean said:
Government doesn't create jobs, every attempt to costs us more private sector jobs.
Click to expand...

If that's the case why would Obama invest almost a trillion dollars in creating jobs???? Was it stupid??? YES.... it was stupid.
 
Boo Radley said:
Simple question, how much is a job worth? All games aside, what number would you accept?
Click to expand...

I would not accept any number because on top of the wasted money these "jobs" cost even if you stretch the idea that they created jobs they are mostly temporary.
 
Camlon said:
while under Bush the Congress was mostly Democratic.
Click to expand...

Check the internet before making statements like that. Bush had a solid Republican legislature from January 3, 2003 – January 3, 2007. Furthermore, he had a Republican house between January 3, 2001 – January 3, 2003. Only in the last 2 years of his last term did he actually have a Democrat Legislature. Amusingly, the worst abuses were between that 1/3/03 and 1/3/07.
 
obvious Child said:
I'm far more interested in the indirect job creation/saving.

The idiotic assumption underlying Zimmer's stupid argument is that those who had jobs created/saved incurred no taxes and spent no money. Now, I don't know where he's from, but people I know spend money merely to eat and house themselves, both often incur taxes in some form. Therefore, the base assumption which ends at the saved job itself is rather idiotic as it ignores basic human behavior.

We know for a fact that when Defense industries get huge contracts, they pick up additional employees and increase raw material orders. Those new employees then spend money as normal folk do. The indirect impact of that spending either preserves jobs or creates new ones. This is basic concept of economic multipliers.

What is super amusing is that Zimmer's argument effectively says multipliers don't exist. While people like him argue that tax cuts expand the economy because people have more money to spend, thus creating layers of new activity. He's basically denying multipliers exists while in other threads promoting them as why tax cuts work.

Finding people who are internally consistent is becoming quite difficult.
Click to expand...

Multiplication is fine, how much of it gets wasted between the tax payer and recipient? How many different bureaucracies are we supporting when those dollars could be better spent?

Point being, government is just a huge middleman, the multiplication occurs after government uses part of it. That reduces the efficiency of the multiplication, but we dont really know by how much.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Multiplication is fine
Click to expand...

Not according to the hacks here.

how much of it gets wasted between the tax payer and recipient? How many different bureaucracies are we supporting when those dollars could be better spent?
Click to expand...

You do realize nothing of that actually addresses what I wrote no? My point is that the calculation is wrong because it relies upon assumptions that are basically bat**** crazy.

Point being, government is just a huge middleman, the multiplication occurs after government uses part of it. That reduces the efficiency of the multiplication, but we dont really know by how much.
Click to expand...

Well, yes. The government uses the money to spend and generate the initial economic activity which in turns generates layers upon layers. True at many levels governments are taking their cuts in various forms of taxes, but that's not exactly what you make it out to be. Sure if we cut all taxation from the economic layers we might get more activity, but at the same time we might get less as the funds to provide the framework for functioning economies goes down the tubes. Capitalism quickly descends into Anarchy and then economic Despotism without a regulatory framework.

My original point still stands. The stated cost per job is exceptionally stupid as it requires no taxes to be levied and no income to be spent by those saved or created jobs.
 
pbrauer said:
I like the cartoon. What was the cost of materials and machinery used to make it? What was it's value after completed? Did the workers earn enough to buy stuff?

I hope you see the stupidity of this simple calculation, I really do.
Click to expand...
Obviously that monument in the cartoon was worthless.

ROTFLOL... at least we have a Leftist admit he finds useless government created work... useful. One honest stooge amongst them.

I have an idea... let's send all unemployed to some massive field with shovels, and have them just dig holes... for no particular reason. They will require tools, machinery, fuel and the like. Then I look forward to you explanation on the usefulness of said holes.

.
 
Boo Radley said:
Simple question, how much is a job worth? All games aside, what number would you accept?
Click to expand...
A job is worth what the employer is willing to pay and the employee is willing to accept.

.
 
Let's see what we have here.

Obama is brilliant and he has a few economists that are said to be brilliant as well.

So with this brain trust in place who is listening to whom in their little circle, or do they agree on what they have done that has failed so miserably, and cost so much and no net jobs to show for it.

I didn't study economics in college and have never been called brilliant for academic endeavors and I could do better than these maroons have done and so many of those who post here.

I think it's all about common sense and Obama and those around him don't have the common sense of a rock.
 
zimmer said:
A job is worth what the employer is willing to pay and the employee is willing to accept.

.
Click to expand...

Not exactly answering the question I asked. Not that I completely disagree with you. But try answering with the context in which it was asked. :coffeepap
 
obvious Child said:
Not according to the hacks here.



You do realize nothing of that actually addresses what I wrote no? My point is that the calculation is wrong because it relies upon assumptions that are basically bat**** crazy.



Well, yes. The government uses the money to spend and generate the initial economic activity which in turns generates layers upon layers. True at many levels governments are taking their cuts in various forms of taxes, but that's not exactly what you make it out to be.

My original point still stands. The stated cost per job is exceptionally stupid as it requires no taxes to be levied and no income to be spent by those saved or created jobs.
Click to expand...

Thats exactly the point. Government wastes the money before it spends it, the more money you give government the more they waste. They only multiply the money after they waste a good portion of it. If it stayed in the economy it goes to work no matter where it is.

Sure if we cut all taxation from the economic layers we might get more activity, but at the same time we might get less as the funds to provide the framework for functioning economies goes down the tubes. Capitalism quickly descends into Anarchy and then economic Despotism without a regulatory framework.
Click to expand...

Uhh, strawman? No one is saying cut everything, but government has its hands in way too many things and is trying to do too much.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Thats exactly the point. Government wastes the money before it spends it, the more money you give government the more they waste.
Click to expand...

That depends how you define waste.

They only multiply the money after they waste a good portion of it. If it stayed in the economy it goes to work no matter where it is.
Click to expand...

This is why your earlier arguments failed. You did and contiune to fail to account for the fact that the money was for all intensive purposes, removed from the economy. The idiocy of taking opportunity cost to the cult status you've taken it to assumes that it will ALWAYS be used. That was not the case in 2008 or 2009 where money basically sat under beds collecting dust. Rather then take the absolute standing on how opportunity cost works, look at what the resources were doing before the event.

You still have not addressed my original point. Nor has anyone else.

Uhh, strawman? No one is saying cut everything, but government has its hands in way too many things and is trying to do too much.
Click to expand...

Did you read the budget the Democrats almost got the GOP house to pass? 70% for effective purposes is everything.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom