Where Did the Stimulus Go?

ashurbanipal said:

This post caught my eye. Here are my extensive comments:



No doubt someone is to be employed to fly the helicopter, so that's at least one job.



Which no doubt employed a few people to build...



Which again, clearly employed a few people.



Ditto.



Does it not occur to people that perhaps there are plans to increase traffic there? Again, surely we didn't just throw the money on the ground and a runway popped right up...



This probably involved interviews and distributing surveys...which means most of the money probably went to employ people.



Long term employment for at least a few people.



Did the tunnel just build itself? Surely not...



If this is the project I'm thinking of, I know the contractor who got this job. He was able to keep 15 people employed who he otherwise would have had to let go because of this contract. And though the lake bed is dry, there's a steep drop-off near the road. That's what the guardrail was built for.



It didn't renovate itself. And now it's in use. Given the cost of shipping long distances via semi trailer, we need to be rehabilitating our rail system.



Out of 862 billion dollars, that's a pretty small level of error...



Which must surely employ at least a few people...



Did they weatherize themselves, or did a few people get paid to do it?



Is this reporter unaware of the facts of life? If you want fish, you'll need fish sperm. And again, I imagine that it needs employed people to run it.



Employed at least one vet and a few assistants.



Given that the alternative would be having this dumbass reporter claiming that the stimulus money wasn't being used for anything, this seems like a fair thing. And again, surely people were paid to make, ship, and place those signs...



Now this one, I disagree with. A lot more people need to kill themselves. I have a long list of suggestions about who if you're interested...



I happen to know that this study was conducted by robots who are made and serviced by other robots...



Robots, again...



Does the reporter think this was accomplished by robots also (gay decorator robots, perhaps)?



Potentially saving significant health care costs that would otherwise come out of the taxpayer pocket...and again, surely it took paying some people to accomplish the study.



Again, people paid to do this. And, it should moderately increase traffic to the National Forest over the long term, which means a need for more park rangers and maintenance workers. When you build infrastructure, jobs are also created.



But strangely, it will be a museum that employs absolutely no one at all...



Would you want to live in a world where there were no stories or music? Seriously? And people have to be paid to make them. Even baskets have a use, and people pay for them, and have to be paid to make them.



The more "viral" ways we can find to get people thinking about energy efficiency, the better.



Staffed by robots and built by same...hopefully by now the point is obvious.

Click to expand...

So what your saying is........there is no such thing as a bridge to nowhere.......and every and any government project is full of merit.....and worthy of stealing from our Grandchildren's grandchildren. The government is the almighty and can do no wrong.

Now, since these are government funded, they automatically come under fire from conservatives. However, when private enterprise produces plastic pumpkins for getting halloween candy (because sacks weren't working well enough), imitation bull scrota for hanging off the back of your pickup truck, tuxedos in 17 different colors and styles for Ken and Barbie dolls, aerosol cheese spray in a holiday can, or, say, mortgage backed securities, those same conservatives make the points I just made: it employs people.

Click to expand...

Well except the biggest difference is the Plastic Pumpkin factory, Bull Scrota Inc., and Matell.........
.........dont send men with guns to your door if you refuse to buy their product......like Governemnt does.


If your having a hard time making ends meet, putting food on the table, or just not inclined to buy cheese spray or bull scrota.........
........the Plastic Pumpkin factory, Bull Scrota Inc., and Matell dont automatically seize 30-50% of your paycheck.....like Government does.

Your justification for your entire argument ends with "Well it employs people"........which leads me to believe you dont know the difference between a JOB and a JOB. One is long term employment........the other occurs after a rubdown in an asian massage parlor or after a Democrat "stimulus bill". One benefits society and the economy.....the other leaves the public wanting their money back from those spend happy liberal whores.

What happens to those "millions of jobs created by PORKULUS" the very second stimulus funding runs out?

So did this Subprime Government Spending to Nowhere actually create "Jobs"......or just postpone unemployment?
.
.
.
.
.

Badmutha said:

So what your saying is........there is no such thing as a bridge to nowhere.......and every and any government project is full of merit.....and worthy of stealing from our Grandchildren's grandchildren. The government is the almighty and can do no wrong.

Click to expand...

No, if I were saying that, I would have said just that. I am quite critical of government, but I have come to view the problem as not one of government per se, or of corporations per se. The problem we have in this country is that we, ourselves, the people, as a whole, have become soft, weak, lazy, unhealthy, ignorant, uneducated, brutish, foolish and foolhardy, undisciplined, unkind, disconnected, credulous, unvital, and as a people almost entirely without merit. As a result, we have lost cohesion.

This should surprise no one. So far, it has happened to every great nation that attained a world-leadership position, either through economic hegemony or military conquest, that didn't perish as a direct result of a great war. This is partially due to the inability of national myths to adapt to radically new circumstances, but I don't want to get into such abstractions here. It's sufficient to point out that this is what brought down the British, the Mongols, the Mauryans, the Sassanids, the Byzantines, the Romans, the Macedonians, the Assyrians, and probably the Egyptians, the Aztec, and the Maya. Four exceptions I can think of are the Achaemenids, the Turks, Germany and Japan, all of which lost a great war. Russia is still playing out.

Anyway, the point is that we get the government we deserve. Government is really just a product of our social interactions. It is not some monolithic and starkly separate entity.

Badmutha said:

Well except the biggest difference is the Plastic Pumpkin factory, Bull Scrota Inc., and Matell.........
.........dont send men with guns to your door if you refuse to buy their product......like Governemnt does.

Click to expand...

The government sends men with guns to people's doors for failing to use the concrete toilets in Mark Twain National Park? Or for not using that train depot in Pennsylvannia? What products are you talking about?

Badmutha said:

If your having a hard time making ends meet, putting food on the table, or just not inclined to buy cheese spray or bull scrota.........
........the Plastic Pumpkin factory, Bull Scrota Inc., and Matell dont automatically seize 30-50% of your paycheck.....like Government does.

Click to expand...

First, I don't recall ever having 30-50% of my payheck siezed. And I've been working a long time. The highest rate I've ever paid was, IIRC, 28%, and that was under Bush. Second, I'm afraid I can't credit your underlying argument. Without taxes, there could be no government. History shows that we can't do without government.

Badmutha said:

Your justification for your entire argument ends with "Well it employs people"........which leads me to believe you dont know the difference between a JOB and a JOB. One is long term employment........the other occurs after a rubdown in an asian massage parlor or after a Democrat "stimulus bill". One benefits society and the economy.....the other leaves the public wanting their money back from those spend happy liberal whores.

Click to expand...

You seem to be referring to temporary vs. permanent employment. You have a valid point, but only just. It doesn't have the force you think it does. First, that money is spent by those who get the temporary jobs, which increases revenue where they spend it, allowing greater retention. Second, the government typically hires contracting firms, who in turn employ people full time. As I mentioned on that job in Guymon, OK--the contractor would have had to let half his guys go. But he got that job and that was enough to get them through the worst of it. So that's 15 jobs saved that otherwise wouldn't have been. I would imagine similar circumstances prevail in at least some of those other instances.

Badmutha said:

What happens to those "millions of jobs created by PORKULUS" the very second stimulus funding runs out?

Click to expand...

Not what you seem to think. You're applying very simplistic thinking to a complex situation. Some, no doubt, do evaporate. Others do not. Of those that do go away, some will have provided just enough for people to get over the hump and get permanent employment as the economy improves and the liquidity spent in the stimulus helps the job market improve. Additionally, the money spent helps keep jobs that otherwise likely would have been cut.

That said, I don't particularly like the spending bill. It should have never been necessary. The story of how we got here is convoluted, and both libs and cons are well indicted at every step of the way.

ashurbanipal said:

No, if I were saying that, I would have said just that. I am quite critical of government,

Click to expand...

Quite critical of government........and yet you couldnt bring yourself to criticize even one of the many Porkulus Projects to Nowhere......

but I have come to view the problem as not one of government per se, or of corporations per se. The problem we have in this country is that we, ourselves, the people, as a whole, have become soft, weak, lazy, unhealthy, ignorant, uneducated, brutish, foolish and foolhardy, undisciplined, unkind, disconnected, credulous, unvital, and as a people almost entirely without merit. As a result, we have lost cohesion.

Click to expand...

First I would say speak for yourself.......secondly.....we have a nanny state liberal governemnt that rewards Failure while punishing Success. Continue to punish success.....we shall be without......continue to reward failure.......we will have nothing but.

The afflictions you list....are as much a result of the government as it is the people.

This should surprise no one. So far, it has happened to every great nation that attained a world-leadership position, either through economic hegemony or military conquest, that didn't perish as a direct result of a great war. This is partially due to the inability of national myths to adapt to radically new circumstances, but I don't want to get into such abstractions here. It's sufficient to point out that this is what brought down the British, the Mongols, the Mauryans, the Sassanids, the Byzantines, the Romans, the Macedonians, the Assyrians, and probably the Egyptians, the Aztec, and the Maya. Four exceptions I can think of are the Achaemenids, the Turks, Germany and Japan, all of which lost a great war. Russia is still playing out.

Anyway, the point is that we get the government we deserve. Government is really just a product of our social interactions. It is not some monolithic and starkly separate entity.

Click to expand...

And does the action or inaction of a government have any effect on social interactions?

The government sends men with guns to people's doors for failing to use the concrete toilets in Mark Twain National Park? Or for not using that train depot in Pennsylvannia? What products are you talking about?

Click to expand...

Should you fail to pay for the products that government is forcing you to buy............men with guns are dispatched to your door. This doesnt happen with the Plastic Pumpkin factory, Bull Scrota Inc., Matell or anywhere in the free market.

First, I don't recall ever having 30-50% of my payheck siezed. And I've been working a long time. The highest rate I've ever paid was, IIRC, 28%, and that was under Bush. Second, I'm afraid I can't credit your underlying argument. Without taxes, there could be no government. History shows that we can't do without government.

Click to expand...

What was the highest rate you paid to the Plastic Pumpkin factory, Bull Scrota Inc., and Matell?

You seem to be referring to temporary vs. permanent employment. You have a valid point, but only just. It doesn't have the force you think it does. First, that money is spent by those who get the temporary jobs, which increases revenue where they spend it, allowing greater retention. Second, the government typically hires contracting firms, who in turn employ people full time. As I mentioned on that job in Guymon, OK--the contractor would have had to let half his guys go. But he got that job and that was enough to get them through the worst of it. So that's 15 jobs saved that otherwise wouldn't have been. I would imagine similar circumstances prevail in at least some of those other instances.

Click to expand...

.....do you also believe unemployment checks create jobs?

Not what you seem to think. You're applying very simplistic thinking to a complex situation. Some, no doubt, do evaporate. Others do not. Of those that do go away, some will have provided just enough for people to get over the hump and get permanent employment as the economy improves and the liquidity spent in the stimulus helps the job market improve. Additionally, the money spent helps keep jobs that otherwise likely would have been cut.

That said, I don't particularly like the spending bill. It should have never been necessary. The story of how we got here is convoluted, and both libs and cons are well indicted at every step of the way.

Click to expand...

So perhaps all the Democrat claims of "Porkulus creating jobs" should be replaced with "Porkulus creating temporary work"......
.
.
.
.

In answer to the question I am reminded of the title of and old Cheech & Chong movie.

Up In Smoke.

Badmutha said:

Quite critical of government........and yet you couldnt bring yourself to criticize even one of the many Porkulus Projects to Nowhere......

Click to expand...

One does not preclude the other.

Badmutha said:

First I would say speak for yourself

Click to expand...

You might indeed, but you'd be wrong to do so.

Badmutha said:

we have a nanny state liberal governemnt that rewards Failure while punishing Success. Continue to punish success.....we shall be without......continue to reward failure.......we will have nothing but.

Click to expand...

First--we do not have a liberal government. We don't have a conservative government either. Second, it's not as simple as you claim. At least as bad as what you mention is the promotion of a highly competitive and materialistic attitude.

Badmutha said:

The afflictions you list....are as much a result of the government as it is the people.

Click to expand...

I agree, but not for the reasons you do. The government is a part and product of the whole--the government is a microcosm of the people. Not that it must be so. It's just that, in our case, it is so.

Badmutha said:

And does the action or inaction of a government have any effect on social interactions?

Click to expand...

Sure, but again, you're treating it as a separate entity. It's anything but.

Badmutha said:

Should you fail to pay for the products that government is forcing you to buy............men with guns are dispatched to your door. This doesnt happen with the Plastic Pumpkin factory, Bull Scrota Inc., Matell or anywhere in the free market.

Click to expand...

First, we don't have a free market. And we shouldn't.

Second, you're comparing apples to oranges. What do you think would happen if governments all over the world stopped collecting taxes entirely?

Badmutha said:

What was the highest rate you paid to the Plastic Pumpkin factory, Bull Scrota Inc., and Matell?

Click to expand...

Far less, but why is that relevant? The original point of the article was to show that the stimulus spending was going for frivolous stuff. I responded that it had created or saved jobs, and that even though the results may be perceived by some as frivolous, that's hardly important since it's a fact that frivolous things do create employment. Plenty of people are gainfully employed in frivolous pursuits (like marketing plastic pumpkins). In short, the frivolity of the project does not make a good criticism.

Badmutha said:

.....do you also believe unemployment checks create jobs?

Click to expand...

I'm fairly sure they do, though indirectly. Businesses hire people to manage a share in the market. Where the market is softening, businesses fire people. Where the market is strengthening, they hire. That's the theory anyway; the actual situation is more complex. But unemployment checks are money that is spent on things like gas, groceries, mortgage payments, etc.--and the companies doing the selling all employ people. Without that money, those businesses would be laying people off. Where the market is sustained long enough and more revenue is generated, that will typically result in hiring.

The dislocations in our economy go back a long way. Their most immediate causes lay in some very poor decisions made in the 70's and 80's. But it can be traced back much farther than that.

Badmutha said:

So perhaps all the Democrat claims of "Porkulus creating jobs" should be replaced with "Porkulus creating temporary work"......

Click to expand...

No, that doesn't follow.

Whovian said:

Where Did the Stimulus Go?

Click to expand...

It went to prevent this from happening again:

As far as I understand, the biggest problem with the stimulus is that it went to more long-term projects (like building of infrastructure) instead of short-term. So less jobs were created immediately, though we will benefit from the stimulus over the long haul. I listen to conservative talk radio sometimes, and this was their biggest complaint about it when it came out.

ashurbanipal said:

One does not preclude the other.



You might indeed, but you'd be wrong to do so.



First--we do not have a liberal government. We don't have a conservative government either. Second, it's not as simple as you claim. At least as bad as what you mention is the promotion of a highly competitive and materialistic attitude.

Click to expand...

Lets go with Nanny Statist government then. Place it where you will on the political spectrum........its left field to me and the founders.

I agree, but not for the reasons you do. The government is a part and product of the whole--the government is a microcosm of the people. Not that it must be so. It's just that, in our case, it is so.

Click to expand...

If that were true....the government would be comprised of 52% Conservatives--49% Independents--19% Liberals. A government that controls every aspect of our economy and society dictates the product.

Sure, but again, you're treating it as a separate entity. It's anything but.

Click to expand...

Its a seperate entity that resides and operates in Imaginationland

First, we don't have a free market. And we shouldn't.

Second, you're comparing apples to oranges. What do you think would happen if governments all over the world stopped collecting taxes entirely?

Click to expand...

The biggest economic boom and advancement of humanity the planet has ever seen........

Far less, but why is that relevant? The original point of the article was to show that the stimulus spending was going for frivolous stuff. I responded that it had created or saved jobs, and that even though the results may be perceived by some as frivolous, that's hardly important since it's a fact that frivolous things do create employment. Plenty of people are gainfully employed in frivolous pursuits (like marketing plastic pumpkins). In short, the frivolity of the project does not make a good criticism.

Click to expand...

And even if you believe it has......AT WHAT COST?

At what figure would you say government created or saved jobs act as a detriment rather than a benefit?

$1,000,000.00 per job? $500,000.00 per job? $200,000 per job?

I'm fairly sure they do, though indirectly. Businesses hire people to manage a share in the market. Where the market is softening, businesses fire people. Where the market is strengthening, they hire. That's the theory anyway; the actual situation is more complex. But unemployment checks are money that is spent on things like gas, groceries, mortgage payments, etc.--and the companies doing the selling all employ people. Without that money, those businesses would be laying people off. Where the market is sustained long enough and more revenue is generated, that will typically result in hiring.

Click to expand...

Except nowhere in the theory stated, is there an explanation of where the money ultimately comes from. If we lived in a world of money trees, perhaps that theory would have merit, unfortunately we do not. And employers paying people not to work, has never created a single job in the history of mankind

The dislocations in our economy go back a long way. Their most immediate causes lay in some very poor decisions made in the 70's and 80's. But it can be traced back much farther than that.



No, that doesn't follow.

Click to expand...

Well follow this.........Almost 2 eyars after THE LARGEST SPENDING BILL IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD.......we saw a whopping 36,000 jobs created last month.

R.I.P......any notion of Government "creating jobs" or government stimulating an economy via MASSIVE GOVERNMENT SPENDING.
.
.
.
.

Catawba said:

It went to prevent this from happening again:

Click to expand...

Hoax........



....and Change.

Unemployment Rate Since Obama's "Stimulus/Jobs" Bill



Unemployment was 17% prior to FDR's Raw Deal..........and 17% 5 years after the Raw Deal.......

......what was prevented then......what was prevented today?
.
.
..

whysoserious said:

As far as I understand, the biggest problem with the stimulus is that it went to more long-term projects (like building of infrastructure) instead of short-term.

Click to expand...

So much for "shovel ready" huh?

So less jobs were created immediately, though we will benefit from the stimulus over the long haul. I listen to conservative talk radio sometimes, and this was their biggest complaint about it when it came out.

Click to expand...

Well here we are almost 2 years later........with a whopping 36,000 jobs created last month.

Exactly how long a haul is it?
.
.
.

Badmutha said:

So much for "shovel ready" huh?



Well here we are almost 2 years later........with a whopping 36,000 jobs created last month.

Exactly how long a haul is it?
.
.
.

Click to expand...

As I recall when it came out they said about 5 years - but I could be wrong. It was pretty long. A lot of it is up to the states I believe. For instance, North Carolina is building a high-speed train with the money.

The project is underway, but these things take quite a long time to even get moving.

whysoserious said:

As I recall when it came out they said about 5 years - but I could be wrong. It was pretty long. A lot of it is up to the states I believe.

Click to expand...

Well according to Obama--A president who has never even ran a lemonade stand..... and his team of economic illiterates.....the impact of PORKULUS was going to be felt right away......as their own graph shows.



.....and two "Summers of Recovery" later........it seems to have made things worse if anything.

For instance, North Carolina is building a high-speed train with the money.

Click to expand...

A high speed train to nowhere........
.
.

Badmutha said:

Well according to Obama--A president who has never even ran a lemonade stand..... and his team of economic illiterates.....the impact of PORKULUS was going to be felt right away......as their own graph shows.

.....and two "Summers of Recovery" later........it seems to have made things worse if anything.




A high speed train to nowhere........
.
.

Click to expand...

Nice job Ross Perot.

*Edit:

And no, the train is to D.C.. I am pretty excited about it!

whysoserious said:

Nice job Ross Perot.

*Edit:

And no, the train is to D.C.. I am pretty excited about it!

Click to expand...

Well decades of Amtrack later......operating at a loss of over $30/ per passenger.......

.......I would say your probably one of the few people excited about it.
.
.
.
.

Badmutha said:

Well decades of Amtrack later......operating at a loss of over $30/ per passenger.......

.......I would say your probably one of the few people excited about it.
.
.
.
.

Click to expand...

That's because we have one of the most underdeveloped track systems compared to the rest of the developed world. Like Obama said in his SOTUA, we were graded a D- on our infrastructure. Why would anyone take a train when it is slow and does not go to the destination they want?

This train will be awesome. I will take it often, as I am sure many will. NC to DC, DC to NY. I will be good for the environment, less on fuel, cheaper on the wallet, and fast.

Why are you upset at us catching up with the rest of the world?

Hoax and change

Click to expand...

Don't know where you got your graphs since you didn't source them but the non-partisan CBO says the stimulus prevented another depression as did this study by Moody's chief economist and Princeton University expert -

"An in-depth modelling exercise by Moody's chief economist, Mark Zandi, and a Princeton University expert, Alan Blinder, paints a bleak scenario of a 1930s-style Great Depression if the US government had enacted none of its $1.7tn (£1.3tn) programmes to avert a financial meltdown.

Using historical statistical relationships and a focus on the government's impact on narrowing credit spreads, the pair found that the downturn would have continued into 2011, with unemployment peaking at 16.5% rather than last year's actual high of 10.1%.

They believe US gross domestic product would have slumped by 7.4% in 2009 and by 3.7% in 2010, producing a "peak to trough" decline of 12%, rather than the anticipated 4%. Starved of demand, shops and employers would be cutting prices and wages.

"With outright deflation in prices and wages in 2009 to 2011, this dark scenario constitutes a 1930s-like depression," says the study, entitled How the great recession was brought to an end."
US bailouts prevented 1930s-style Great Depression says new study | Business | The Guardian

Catawba said:

Don't know where you got your graphs since you didn't source them...

Click to expand...

He already hates me for pointing out that he plagiarizes. I do applaud him, though. He finally started quoting the quotes he takes from other people, though now he is throwing around unsourced charts.

Maybe he made them himself?

whysoserious said:

That's because we have one of the most underdeveloped track systems compared to the rest of the developed world. Like Obama said in his SOTUA, we were graded a D- on our infrastructure.

Click to expand...

So after spending billions of dollars on Infrastructure via PORKULUS........we still have a D-.

Why would anyone take a train when it is slow and does not go to the destination they want?

This train will be awesome. I will take it often, as I am sure many will. NC to DC, DC to NY. I will be good for the environment, less on fuel, cheaper on the wallet, and fast.

Why are you upset at us catching up with the rest of the world?

Click to expand...

Similar to all Public options......Public transportation works.......when you give "free" people no other option.

Oh were catching up alright.........



......next stop......Bankruptcy, USA.....all aboard.
.
.
.
.

Catawba said:

Don't know where you got your graphs since you didn't source them but the non-partisan CBO says the stimulus prevented another depression as did this study by Moody's chief economist and Princeton University expert -

"An in-depth modelling exercise by Moody's chief economist, Mark Zandi, and a Princeton University expert, Alan Blinder, paints a bleak scenario of a 1930s-style Great Depression if the US government had enacted none of its $1.7tn (£1.3tn) programmes to avert a financial meltdown.

Using historical statistical relationships and a focus on the government's impact on narrowing credit spreads, the pair found that the downturn would have continued into 2011, with unemployment peaking at 16.5% rather than last year's actual high of 10.1%.

They believe US gross domestic product would have slumped by 7.4% in 2009 and by 3.7% in 2010, producing a "peak to trough" decline of 12%, rather than the anticipated 4%. Starved of demand, shops and employers would be cutting prices and wages.

"With outright deflation in prices and wages in 2009 to 2011, this dark scenario constitutes a 1930s-like depression," says the study, entitled How the great recession was brought to an end."
US bailouts prevented 1930s-style Great Depression says new study | Business | The Guardian

Click to expand...

what good is having an authoritarian regime if they don't have 'experts' to wheel out and arm their acolytes with talking points and made up statistics?

Catawba said:

Don't know where you got your graphs since you didn't source them

Click to expand...

The first chart comes from The Kenyan Tyrant and his team of economic "experts".........surely you saw it when they were selling you their Stimulus to Nowhere......

The second graph comes from the BLS.......

but the non-partisan CBO says the stimulus prevented another depression as did this study by Moody's chief economist and Princeton University expert -

Click to expand...

So you and your 4 or 5 economists disagree with these 400 Economists?

Untitled Document

"An in-depth modelling exercise by Moody's chief economist, Mark Zandi, and a Princeton University expert, Alan Blinder, paints a bleak scenario of a 1930s-style Great Depression if the US government had enacted none of its $1.7tn (£1.3tn) programmes to avert a financial meltdown.

Using historical statistical relationships and a focus on the government's impact on narrowing credit spreads, the pair found that the downturn would have continued into 2011, with unemployment peaking at 16.5% rather than last year's actual high of 10.1%.

They believe US gross domestic product would have slumped by 7.4% in 2009 and by 3.7% in 2010, producing a "peak to trough" decline of 12%, rather than the anticipated 4%. Starved of demand, shops and employers would be cutting prices and wages.

"With outright deflation in prices and wages in 2009 to 2011, this dark scenario constitutes a 1930s-like depression," says the study, entitled How the great recession was brought to an end."
US bailouts prevented 1930s-style Great Depression says new study | Business | The Guardian

Click to expand...

....and Im guessing you also believe it was FDR's Raw Deal that brought us out of the Great Depression?

Just remember......without Obama's Stimulus it would have been worse.......and when its worse......it would have been worser.
.
.
.

whysoserious said:

He already hates me for pointing out that he plagiarizes. I do applaud him, though. He finally started quoting the quotes he takes from other people, though now he is throwing around unsourced charts.

Maybe he made them himself?

Click to expand...

The now-sourced charts aside.......could you give me an example of all the quotes you claim I have plagiarized?

And I dont hate you......I hate what you and your ilk are doing to this once great country.
.
.
.
.

Badmutha said:

Lets go with Nanny Statist government then. Place it where you will on the political spectrum........its left field to me and the founders.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you mean by this reply.

Badmutha said:

If that were true....the government would be comprised of 52% Conservatives--49% Independents--19% Liberals. A government that controls every aspect of our economy and society dictates the product.

Click to expand...

Again, this doesn't follow--you're committing the fallacy of composition. Small armies sometimes defeat large ones. Colorless substances mix to form pigments. And so on. Government doesn't have to be composed of the exact proportions of positions held by the people as a whole for my point to be true (and I tend to disagree with your figures, but that's not relevant).

The actions of government are important, but what I'm really getting at is the causes of those actions. The American People are greedy and materialistic, and these same forces drive the actions of government. They drive the actions of liberals, conservatives, and those in between. The American People are uneducated and undisciplined, and these same forces drive the actions of government. And so when liberals or conservatives act, the actions they take tend towards the same results--a perpetuation of our downward slide.

badmutha said:

Its a seperate entity that resides and operates in Imaginationland

Click to expand...

Where Jesus is President and Manbearpig is the Secretary of Defense...

Badmutha said:

The biggest economic boom and advancement of humanity the planet has ever seen........

Click to expand...

Why do you think that?

Badmutha said:

And even if you believe it has......AT WHAT COST?

At what figure would you say government created or saved jobs act as a detriment rather than a benefit?

$1,000,000.00 per job? $500,000.00 per job? $200,000 per job?

Click to expand...

Depends on the situation and what the goal is. At some point, when enough people can't get jobs, you end up with social unrest. And at some further point, if that is allowed to continue, you end up with a revolution. Given how tied into the world economy our own is, that would be a disaster of epic proportions.

Badmutha said:

Except nowhere in the theory stated, is there an explanation of where the money ultimately comes from.

Click to expand...

Oh, quite a lot more than that is left out...but this is a discussion forum after all, not a doctoral dissertation.

However, since you ask, here it is:

There are three economies. The primary economy is the environment, from which we derive raw materials. The production of clean fresh water in aquifers and wetlands, the production of wood in forrests, the production of grain in fields, etc.--all of that is the primary economy.

The secondary economy is the economy of goods human beings produce from raw materials extracted from the primary economy.

The tertiary economy is the flow of money which has a numerical relationship to the quantities of production and extraction in the secondary economy, and extraction in the primary economy.

In order for money to work, it must maintain some proportion to goods in the primary economy. At the same time, enough of it must remain liquid in order to facilitate the trade of goods and services in the secondary economy. Where wealth gaps are very large, the tertiary and secondary economies become very inefficient. This is why, in a nutshell, pure capitalism fails (I'm sure you're well aware of the reasons pure socialism fails...and it does fail, just as surely as pure capitalism). When the wealth gap is very large, the entity issuing money is faced with a dilemma--not printing money maintains the numerical proportion of money to goods and services, but fails to provide the liquidity necessary to facilitate trade. Printing money does just the opposite.

This is why I stated I don't like the spending bill. We risk hyperinflation, especially should the derivatives market ever collapse (since the banks which facilitate those markets would be compelled to print money to cover the notional value of the derivatives). It came dangerously close in 2008.

But not doing so has a more direct consequence, as I stated above. If the secondary market lacks enough money to facilitate trade, then you have physical breakdowns in the economy, and that's how revolutions and/or coups happen.

Badmutha said:

If we lived in a world of money trees, perhaps that theory would have merit, unfortunately we do not. And employers paying people not to work, has never created a single job in the history of mankind.

Click to expand...

I disagree. We can create as much money as we want; the production of money itself isn't problematic. So we don't live in a forest of money trees...but we might as well.

What do you think does create jobs?

Badmutha said:

Well follow this.........Almost 2 eyars after THE LARGEST SPENDING BILL IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD.......we saw a whopping 36,000 jobs created last month.

R.I.P......any notion of Government "creating jobs" or government stimulating an economy via MASSIVE GOVERNMENT SPENDING.

Click to expand...

Again, doesn't follow. There may be many reasons for this--it's not necessarily the case that the principle itself is flawed.

Badmutha said:

Just remember......without Obama's Stimulus it would have been worse.......and when its worse......it would have been worser.

Click to expand...

Judging Stimulus by Job Data Reveals Success

"Imagine if, one year ago, Congress had passed a stimulus bill that really worked.

Let’s say this bill had started spending money within a matter of weeks and had rapidly helped the economy. Let’s also imagine it was large enough to have had a huge impact on jobs — employing something like two million people who would otherwise be unemployed right now.

If that had happened, what would the economy look like today?

Well, it would look almost exactly as it does now. Because those nice descriptions of the stimulus that I just gave aren’t hypothetical. They are descriptions of the actual bill.

Just look at the outside evaluations of the stimulus. Perhaps the best-known economic research firms are IHS Global Insight, Macroeconomic Advisers and Moody’s Economy.com. They all estimate that the bill has added 1.6 million to 1.8 million jobs so far and that its ultimate impact will be roughly 2.5 million jobs. The Congressional Budget Office, an independent agency, considers these estimates to be conservative."
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/17/business/economy/17leonhardt.html

Catawba said:

Don't know where you got your graphs since you didn't source them but the non-partisan CBO says the stimulus prevented another depression as did this study by Moody's chief economist and Princeton University expert -

"An in-depth modelling exercise by Moody's chief economist, Mark Zandi, and a Princeton University expert, Alan Blinder, paints a bleak scenario of a 1930s-style Great Depression if the US government had enacted none of its $1.7tn (£1.3tn) programmes to avert a financial meltdown.

Using historical statistical relationships and a focus on the government's impact on narrowing credit spreads, the pair found that the downturn would have continued into 2011, with unemployment peaking at 16.5% rather than last year's actual high of 10.1%.

They believe US gross domestic product would have slumped by 7.4% in 2009 and by 3.7% in 2010, producing a "peak to trough" decline of 12%, rather than the anticipated 4%. Starved of demand, shops and employers would be cutting prices and wages.

"With outright deflation in prices and wages in 2009 to 2011, this dark scenario constitutes a 1930s-like depression," says the study, entitled How the great recession was brought to an end."
US bailouts prevented 1930s-style Great Depression says new study | Business | The Guardian

Click to expand...

It should be pointed out that Blinder and Zandi did not seperate TARP with the stimulus, thus the number bigger than stimulus. No one bothered to press them on this. If they did you would find that when they talk of depression it is about a frozen financial system that thawed under TARP. Stimulus gave a short term shot in the arm which helped somewhat but is not the major contributor to what those folks talked about.

washunut said:

It should be pointed out that Blinder and Zandi did not seperate TARP with the stimulus, thus the number bigger than stimulus. No one bothered to press them on this. If they did you would find that when they talk of depression it is about a frozen financial system that thawed under TARP. Stimulus gave a short term shot in the arm which helped somewhat but is not the major contributor to what those folks talked about.

Click to expand...

The tarp funds and the stimulus while being called different names were both government spending to stimulate the economy, so there would be no need to separate them for analysis I would think.