• 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!

LA Times: Obama stimulus spending: $246,436 per new job

So wouldn't letting consumers spend, since they spend money more efficiently, lead to even more jobs than government spending?

Not in a recession, because they won't spend it. They'll hold onto it because they are scared of losing their jobs. And more important, as the critics like to point out, this is borrowed money the government is spending. Consumers don't have all that cash and can't or won't go borrowing it.
 
No it can't. Where is government going to get the money? Hello?!?

The stimulus is the money. I was describing the multiplier effect. Create jobs directly with government money, and those workers go out and spend the money, creating more jobs, and so on. The total jobs created is greater than the ones created directly by government funds. That's the point of a stimulus. That's why they call it a stimulus.
 
Not in a recession, because they won't spend it. They'll hold onto it because they are scared of losing their jobs. And more important, as the critics like to point out, this is borrowed money the government is spending. Consumers don't have all that cash and can't or won't go borrowing it.

That's right and as long as the current government is threatening to pass legislation that will kill jobs, they are going to spend any money, hence the economy isn't going to improve.

How's that Hoax-n-Change working out?
 
Last edited:
Not in a recession, because they won't spend it.

You're suggesting that spending won't increase as purchasing power rises? Are you of the Keynesian school?

;)

They'll hold onto it because they are scared of losing their jobs.

They still have to spend money. More money equals more spending, especially in the aggregate.
 
Not in a recession, because they won't spend it. They'll hold onto it because they are scared of losing their jobs. And more important, as the critics like to point out, this is borrowed money the government is spending. Consumers don't have all that cash and can't or won't go borrowing it.

Loaned money doesn't come from thin air. In the end, there has to be a physical backing for loans.
 
Loaned money doesn't come from thin air. In the end, there has to be a physical backing for loans.

Not sure what you mean.

Once the economy is better, you'll have tax revenue to pay it back.
 
Not sure what you mean.

Once the economy is better, you'll have tax revenue to pay it back.

I spewed beer all over my monitor when I read that!...:rofl

Incredible!!!
 
It's about time you stopped reading that whacky rag. Not all of the money has been received yet.

Hardly any of it really.

Why was it so imperative to ramrod it through so carelessly?
 
I spewed beer all over my monitor when I read that!...:rofl

Incredible!!!

I'm sure there's alot of things you are stunned to learn.

It's basic Keynesian theory. You don't have to agree with it, but it's hardly something new.
 
They just have no clue whatsoever do they?

Yeah, I'm the one with no clue. Right.

You guys have an actual argument?
 
Yeah, I'm the one with no clue. Right.

You guys have an actual argument?

Think what you must to get to sleep at night Misterman, but from where I'm sitting the irony is HILARIOUS. And sadly, the joke is on you.
 
Think what you must to get to sleep at night Misterman, but from where I'm sitting the irony is HILARIOUS. And sadly, the joke is on you.

Yeah, so, anyone got an actual substantive argument? Or are you all just those argument from ignorance types?
 
Yeah, so, anyone got an actual substantive argument? Or are you all just those argument from ignorance types?

As you said: You're always right, so there's no point in debating with you is there?


:lol: :rofl
 
I'm sure there's alot of things you are stunned to learn.

It's basic Keynesian theory. You don't have to agree with it, but it's hardly something new.

And it's a deeply flawed idea. You can't get something from nothing. Government spending NECESSARILY decreases private spending.
 
The first stimulus package failed so miserably that Obama and his henchmen and women Media outlets are reporting that as rising unemployment continues to take a toll on the economy, some top aides to President Obama think a second economic stimulus package may become necessary.

Oh I got it wrong you say? It actually worked beautifully? Then answer this dumb ass; Administration aides said $57 billion of the stimulus funds have been committed, creating 150,000 jobs, or "$380,000 a job." One would think they would be trying to keep this quiet. If this is what you call a success you're dumber than I thought.

I'm pretty sure I could have created twice that many jobs for a bit less. Where od think the money really went?

The Obama inner circle of disciples seem to be bent on proving that some of Einstein's quotes are accurate. Example; “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." That covers the stimulus insanity.

Then we have the Einstein quote; "Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction." This covers the "Obama I Dont' Care About Your Health Kill Granny Plan" and points to what I have been saying right along that our problems could be addressed with Common sense.

Einstein says: "Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen." Coke freaks don't have sense common or other wise, so guess who gets left out here?

I know, I know some idiot is going to claim this is a Fox News conspiracy, or I made it up or it's that damn Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, or other right wing treachery at work. Well it's much worse than that. Prepare for a confession.

I find it openly being talked about where? Well I hate to break it to you wacko Socialist/Commie lovers because it 's from the Communist News Network; Nancy Pelosi open to second stimulus package - CNN.com being said by whom? None other than the female idiot and Liar in Chief Nancy Pelosi.
 
And it's a deeply flawed idea. You can't get something from nothing. Government spending NECESSARILY decreases private spending.

You clearly don't understand the theory. It's one thing to disagree with it, but you don't even get it.

Government spending doesn't decrease private spending. It puts cash that is sitting around anyway, not being spent, and spends it.
 
You clearly don't understand the theory. It's one thing to disagree with it, but you don't even get it.

Government spending doesn't decrease private spending. It puts cash that is sitting around anyway, not being spent, and spends it.

So you're saying that it takes money away from savings? Then tell me genius, how do the people whose savings just got depleted react?
 
So you're saying that it takes money away from savings? Then tell me genius, how do the people whose savings just got depleted react?

Nobody's savings is depleted.

The government borrows money to get it out in the economy again. It works just like with a bank. You put your money in, and someone borrows it and spends it on business activity. Nothing unusual about that, and nobody's savings is depleted.

Genius.
 
it takes money sitting around not being spent and spends it?

LOL!

LOLOLOLOL!

that is THE single funniest thing i heard today

and i hear funny stuff all day every day (i'm a teacher)

i'll make a couple points for you

a quarter mil per job "saved:" that sounds a bit hi, no?

also, keynes, bless his deficit spending heart, always warned about borrowing exceeding 5% of gdp

obama's at 14

the new york times reported 2 saturdays ago that SERVICE on the debt, INTEREST ALONE, will SOON (2016 or 2017) reach ONE TRIL per year

now, that's not funny
 
Nobody's savings is depleted.

The government borrows money to get it out in the economy again. It works just like with a bank. You put your money in, and someone borrows it and spends it on business activity. Nothing unusual about that, and nobody's savings is depleted.

Genius.

Until those loans don't get paid back...
 
it takes money sitting around not being spent and spends it?

Yeah, see, I don't have time to educate you, so don't bother me.
 
Nobody's savings is depleted.

The government borrows money to get it out in the economy again. It works just like with a bank. You put your money in, and someone borrows it and spends it on business activity. Nothing unusual about that, and nobody's savings is depleted.

Genius.

So then you want to talk about loans? So when government borrows all of this money, what happens to the private company's ability to get a loan?
 
Until those loans don't get paid back...

We're not talking about Reagan and Bush's tax cuts here. :mrgreen:

The problem with Keynes is that it should involve tax increases and spending cuts in good times, but somehow that never quite happens. I'm not a hardcore Keynesian and that's partly why, but at least I understand the damn theory and don't go around making wild goofy comments about it based on nothing more than ignorance, like some people here. This is just like the whole 14th amendment thing all over again. I don't mind people disagreeing, but damn, don't insist you're right based on what you don't know.
 
Back
Top Bottom