• 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

The more money people have the more generous they prone to be. We don't need the Government to force generosity.
 
Because government doesn't know what we want as well as we do, so it won't be as efficient as we would be with our own money.

You need to go look up "multiplier effect."

It isn't the government spending money in the multiplier effect, it's people who are earning money working those stimulus jobs. THOSE people are private citizens spending it however they want.
 
Did it occur to you that the people SELLING the necessities will go buy cars and boats? And then the people SELLING the cars and boats will go buy more stuff? And so on?

Multiplier effect. Basic economics.

No, they won't. Only selling neccessities and no big ticket items will leave them with no disposable income. Do you think Wal Mart got so big by selling toilet paper, tooth paste and porkchops? No, they make money by selling $1,000 TV's and selling a bunch of them.
 
You need to go look up "multiplier effect."

It isn't the government spending money in the multiplier effect, it's people who are earning money working those stimulus jobs. THOSE people are private citizens spending it however they want.

There's no way that the government can lower the unemployment rate with stimulus jobs.
 
No, they won't. Only selling neccessities and no big ticket items will leave them with no disposable income. Do you think Wal Mart got so big by selling toilet paper, tooth paste and porkchops? No, they make money by selling $1,000 TV's and selling a bunch of them.

So Wal-Mart employees aren't paid?

Toilet paper, toothpaste, and porkchop makers make no profit on their goods? They don't pay loggers to supply pulp for toiletpaper and pig farmers for meat?
 
Last edited:
There's no way that the government can lower the unemployment rate with stimulus jobs.

Wow, thanks for that insightful, well-reasoned argument. :roll:
 
There's no way that the government can lower the unemployment rate with stimulus jobs.

They could, but it would be temporary. The government would have to create a self sustaining industry to create long term jobs. All these stimulus jobs are temporary jobs that won't last more than 2 years. Now, in those 2 years can someone use the income to try and score a better job, maybe, but I don't the Government isn't betting on this...
 
Then why not stick with something that has a higher success rate (Whatever that might be)?

Yes, whatever might that be?

It just seems to me like an unnecessary risk in a time where we can't afford to tank after taking a gamble like this...

Perhaps we can't afford NOT to. If we sit in a recession for years and years, people sit at home instead of working to create wealth. The government will incur massive debt anyway because those people aren't paying taxes.

The point of a stimulus is to get the economy moving again, now. It's temporary, and it should hopefully pay for itself in the long run, compared to the cost of doing nothing.

Again, I hope it works, I'm not saying it is sure to work. I'm just explaining the theory.
 
You need to go look up "multiplier effect."

It isn't the government spending money in the multiplier effect, it's people who are earning money working those stimulus jobs. THOSE people are private citizens spending it however they want.

I know what the multiplier effect is, give me a break. You could accomplish the same thing though just giving people money, so don't give me this multiplier effect stuff.
 
Yes, whatever might that be?

Let's start a think tank!! IDEAS! GO GO GO!

Perhaps we can't afford NOT to. If we sit in a recession for years and years, people sit at home instead of working to create wealth. The government will incur massive debt anyway because those people aren't paying taxes.

Then maybe the Government shouldn't be collecting taxes, or not near the rates it is collecting them at? And maybe it should stop "taking care" of so many people and just take care of the absolutely worst case scenarios. Not going to get into who's fault it is the Government's bill is so high, but it definitely could be lower and we could be happier (more responsible and self relient) people.

The point of a stimulus is to get the economy moving again, now. It's temporary, and it should hopefully pay for itself in the long run, compared to the cost of doing nothing.

I'm hoping the 3rd time's a charm...

Again, I hope it works, I'm not saying it is sure to work. I'm just explaining the theory.

Here's hoping...I just feel like there's something different we could be doing, ya know? Other than the same old bull**** that clearly has flaws and no definite success rate.
 
They could, but it would be temporary. The government would have to create a self sustaining industry to create long term jobs. All these stimulus jobs are temporary jobs that won't last more than 2 years. Now, in those 2 years can someone use the income to try and score a better job, maybe, but I don't the Government isn't betting on this...

The government can't do that. It hasn't worked, anywhere that it's been tried.
 
The government can't do that. It hasn't worked, anywhere that it's been tried.

I forget who it was, but someone on the forum suggested that the government get in on an upcoming industry the likes of Automobile, Computer, and .Com. Then he/she suggested Space Travel be that industry. :lol:
 
I know what the multiplier effect is, give me a break.

You don't seem to.

You could accomplish the same thing though just giving people money, so don't give me this multiplier effect stuff.

So you're saying we could have a multiplier effect by giving people money or with stimulus jobs?
 
They could, but it would be temporary. The government would have to create a self sustaining industry to create long term jobs.

No it doesn't. Temporary jobs are just fine. They jump-start the economy. Once it is healthy again, it will sustain itself. The temporary jobs will create permanent jobs.
 
Then maybe the Government shouldn't be collecting taxes, or not near the rates it is collecting them at? And maybe it should stop "taking care" of so many people and just take care of the absolutely worst case scenarios. Not going to get into who's fault it is the Government's bill is so high, but it definitely could be lower and we could be happier (more responsible and self relient) people.

Maybe. But right now we are in a crisis.
 
No it doesn't. Temporary jobs are just fine. They jump-start the economy. Once it is healthy again, it will sustain itself. The temporary jobs will create permanent jobs.

Let's hope it goes over better and smoother than the New Deal...though I suppose we don't have a World War to get in the way...though there still might be a "Conservative Coalition" :lol:
 
Maybe. But right now we are in a crisis.

I guess desperate times call for desperate measures...I just don't like the idea that I could get royally ****ed because some suits guessed wrong and let their political affiliations and 6 digit salaries get in the way of making the best decision.
 
You don't seem to.



So you're saying we could have a multiplier effect by giving people money or with stimulus jobs?

You could make the same argument just by giving people money. No need to create worthless projects.
 
You could make the same argument just by giving people money. No need to create worthless projects.

But then you wouldn't create as much wealth upfront.

Either way, you agree there is a multiplier effect, right?
 
But then you wouldn't create as much wealth upfront.

Either way, you agree there is a multiplier effect, right?

Same as consumer spending.
 
I know what the multiplier effect is, give me a break. You could accomplish the same thing though just giving people money, so don't give me this multiplier effect stuff.

And you actually believe this comment debunks the multiplier? :lol:

Now the most efficient stimulus would be to simply increase food stamp benefits because those are shown to be spent immediately, and carry a multiplier value of 1.69. Creating a job when the economy is massively shedding them is the logic behind fiscal stimulus, with the focus of creating/upgrading infrastructure. Not only will someone be put to work, will this person begin a higher order of consumption (income dependent); but a new bridge can now be utilized to even further support future economic interests. A new hospital, research center, library, school, etc... only creates greater prospects for the long run. Therefore more than just those building the "whatever" profits (implicit and explicit profit).

Just giving people money creates a much weaker multiplier effect. Can you explain why Tony?
 
Back
Top Bottom