Question about Stimulus

[Acantha]

Somebody has to do the jobs, extended hours means either more staff or overtime for existing staff, and you need construction/plumbing/carpentry type workers to redo the restrooms. You're either insuring the current providers of the services stay employed, or are hiring new workers for the increased workload.

How does this job help the economy in the long run? Where is the money coming from to pay for these workers? If we don't have real infrastructure to create and sell capital goods, this is all a waste of time. It's the same as giving people money for nothing.

 

And the fact that everyone is too scared to spend is a good thing. Let people save, get rid of debt, liquidate. If we were allowed to come out of this naturally we could use those savings to rebuild ourselves into something worthwhile.

[/dev/null]

Anything that creates a job

 

By that logic Larry Flynt should receive the bailout he asked for. He's been providing employment to young ladies right out of high school for decades

[UBinVA]

At the end of the day, if you just create a jobs works program we are not really solving the problem. Yes, you will have more people employed for a short period of time but no real product was produced. After a road is built, or a bridge repaired, what future value or revenue will that asset bring? Nothing. To sustain an economy we need to invest in companies that will actual produce a product that other people will purchase. That is why tax breaks to corporations and small businesses are vital. If these businesses have more capital and profit making ability, people will start to invest in these businesses again due to potential gains.

 

The other part of this problem that know one is talking about is our deficit. Our government must cut spending and cut it fast. We can not afford these social and entitlement programs. Look at California, it's a total mess because they fund everything for everyone. People in the higher income brackets can not keep paying the bill for people who do not contribute to the society.

 

It comes down to the principle of freedom, liberty, and the respect of private property. Once these inalienable rights are taken away by the government, we have tyranny.

 

Thomas Jefferson:

"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."

 

The founding fathers on wealth redistribution:

http://motls.blogspot.com/2008/10/founding...ibution-of.html

[Cheeseburger_in_paradise]

At the end of the day, if you just create a jobs works program we are not really solving the problem. Yes, you will have more people employed for a short period of time but no real product was produced. After a road is built, or a bridge repaired, what future value or revenue will that asset bring? Nothing. To sustain an economy we need to invest in companies that will actual produce a product that other people will purchase. That is why tax breaks to corporations and small businesses are vital. If these businesses have more capital and profit making ability, people will start to invest in these businesses again due to potential gains.

 

The other part of this problem that know one is talking about is our deficit. Our government must cut spending and cut it fast. We can not afford these social and entitlement programs. Look at California, it's a total mess because they fund everything for everyone. People in the higher income brackets can not keep paying the bill for people who do not contribute to the society.

 

It comes down to the principle of freedom, liberty, and the respect of private property. Once these inalienable rights are taken away by the government, we have tyranny.

 

Thomas Jefferson:

"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."

 

The founding fathers on wealth redistribution:

http://motls.blogspot.com/2008/10/founding...ibution-of.html

 

Roads and bridges and transportation infrastructure is a good long term investment for the overall heath of business. All businesses that move goods and services will need this, and they won't build them themselves. I've said it before, let government do the work the free market system will not take care of, and let government do what it does best, build roads and fight wars. And carry the mail.

[finknottle]

Roads and bridges and transportation infrastructure is a good long term investment for the overall heath of business. All businesses that move goods and services will need this, and they won't build them themselves. I've said it before, let government do the work the free market system will not take care of, and let government do what it does best, build roads and fight wars. And carry the mail.

 

That assumes that the bridges and roads are being built in response to market forces and not in a whimsical effort to drive them. Sprucing up Buffalo's metro system is not going to cause companies to locate there.

[Cheeseburger_in_paradise]

That assumes that the bridges and roads are being built in response to market forces and not in a whimsical effort to drive them. Sprucing up Buffalo's metro system is not going to cause companies to locate there.

 

Yes I agree with you; you are right. Market forces are of great relevance. Wisdom is still a necessary ingredient into where and how the money should be spent. I don't know what's going to fix western NY. On the bright side, it's now pretty easy to get around.

[GG]

You can look at Japan for answers, or you can use WNY as a microcosm of how much economic development that government spending in the region over the last 30 years has provided. That is a very real life experiment to see if private capital and jobs naturally follow public spending. Then you can take that example, and multiply it by a factor of 100 to gauge what could happen to the US.

[Fingon]

Anything that creates a job or requires spending on a project for purpose for the public good should be considered stimulative. Also, the President's requirement on salary requirements on the TARP have to be considered a plus too. It means that the money can be used to short a bank or financial institutions balance sheet or preserve a dividend payout to stock holders which I would assume is stimulative.

How is work that won't begin for over 5 years stimulative?

[Fingon]

How about some real stimulative spending? We should mandate that everyone must have 42 light bulbs in their house. I'm sure that will create light bulb jobs.

[finknottle]

Here is my question about stimulus spending.

 

Bush was ridiculed for saying that following 9/11 everybody should go out and shop to shore up the economy.

 

What is the difference between my being told to run up 20k on my credit cards to create jobs, and the government running up 20k on my credit card to create jobs? I mean other than the fact that one way I get goods and services I want, and the other way somebody else does.

[VABills]

Here is my question about stimulus spending.

 

Bush was ridiculed for saying that following 9/11 everybody should go out and shop to shore up the economy.

 

What is the difference between my being told to run up 20k on my credit cards to create jobs, and the government running up 20k on my credit card to create jobs? I mean other than the fact that one way I get goods and services I want, and the other way somebody else does.

because once the government creates jobs, they'll never go away. pretty soon you will throw all your money into the pot and the government will assign you a task for life Comrade.

[StupidNation]

You're not missing anything, tax cuts are not stimulative in a situation where people have lost, are going to lose, or are afraid of losing their jobs. Working poor or middle class use the money to either pay off existing bills or save it for when they really need it in case they lose their job. And the wealthy are under no obligation to invest the tax cuts in the U.S., and will not significantly increase purchases over what they already spend. So the only alternative is for the gov't to spend domestically, which maintains or creates jobs, which increases consumer confidence, which then stimulates increased consumption.

 

Yes they are. You should study your history better and world economics. Repeating the lies of someone else without an objective view of history is a horrible thing. Compare Carter to Reagan.

[Dan]

Yes they are. You should study your history better and world economics. Repeating the lies of someone else without an objective view of history is a horrible thing. Compare Carter to Reagan.

Interesting thing about Reagan, he's credited as being the ideal conservative Republican President. Yes he cut taxes, greatly, his first year in office. However beginning in 1982, his administration raised taxes every year, he added a cabinet member, and grew the size of the federal government by several hundred thousand employees.

 

So, if I'm thinking right, the best conservative President we've had in 25 years has been Clinton. I'm fairly certain, the number of federal employees shrank during his 8 years and the federal budget was as close to being a surplus as we've seen.

 

Of course, Bush was anti-conservative - growing the government, debt, and spending unlike anything we've ever seen.

 

Maybe this is why I get so confused by the terms conservative and liberal?

[Alaska Darin]

I'm fairly certain, the number of federal employees shrank during his 8 years

If you call cutting the military and NASA while increasing the contractor workforce "shrinking", you'd probably be somewhat correct. Of course, non-DoD government positions went up in the neighborhood of 300K during the Clinton Administration and even more when the so called small government "conservatives" took over.

and the federal budget was as close to being a surplus as we've seen.

You're not connecting the dots. The issues we're seeing today are the direct result of the falsehood of the "Clinton Economy".

Maybe this is why I get so confused by the terms conservative and liberal?

The only confusion is why the terms exist at all. Both parties are pretty much the same. The only real difference is the idiots they pander to.

[finknottle]

The Republicans will never be taken seriously as long as they continue their knee-jerk denial of the successes of the Clinton Administration.

 

Instead of applauding a reasonably pro-growth administration which supported free trade, shrank government, limited spending, and bucked its party over welfare reform, the Pavlovian response continues to be "everything today is Clinton's fault," "it was all because of Republican opposition," etc. John Q. Public hears this and recognizes it for what it is - a steaming bowl of partisan crap. And the Republicans wind up shut out of the national dialog. Whose gonna take your warnings about todays economy seriously when they don't buy your spin on the 90's?

[erynthered]

The Republicans will never be taken seriously as long as they continue their knee-jerk denial of the successes of the Clinton Administration.

 

Instead of applauding a reasonably pro-growth administration which supported free trade, shrank government, limited spending, and bucked its party over welfare reform, the Pavlovian response continues to be "everything today is Clinton's fault," "it was all because of Republican opposition," etc. John Q. Public hears this and recognizes it for what it is - a steaming bowl of partisan crap. And the Republicans wind up shut out of the national dialog. Whose gonna take your warnings about todays economy seriously when they don't buy your spin on the 90's?

 

 

No they dont. Thats the problem. For the most part JQP are idiots.

[Dan]

If you call cutting the military and NASA while increasing the contractor workforce "shrinking", you'd probably be somewhat correct. Of course, non-DoD government positions went up in the neighborhood of 300K during the Clinton Administration and even more when the so called small government "conservatives" took over.

 

You're not connecting the dots. The issues we're seeing today are the direct result of the falsehood of the "Clinton Economy".

 

The only confusion is why the terms exist at all. Both parties are pretty much the same. The only real difference is the idiots they pander to.

So now we're quibbling over which parts of the government are more important. Cut one, grow the other, back and forth. What's more important is did the overall size of the government and did the government's spending increase or decrease? At least that's how I see it. Why should we have continued to grow our military under Clinton? We weren't in any major wars and Russia had pretty well collapsed.

 

I've always kinda laughed at this notion that today's problems are due to some guy 10 years ago. Just how long does it take for an Administration's economic policies to come to fruition? Lord knows the stock market goes up or down every time some one sneezes. Yet, it takes 8+ years for Clinton's policies to take effect? Does that also mean that the economic growth of the 80's was due to the policies of Carter and Ford in the 70's?

 

I'm not saying that all policy effects are seen immediately and that no latent effects are realized. I just don't understand why our current bad economy is because of Clinton. And that our economic growth in the 90's was because of Bush/Reagan. But our economy in the 80's was also Reagan. See how it all gets backed up kinda (because we all know Carter sucked balls)? Does that also mean that we don't have to do anything now, because Bush's last 8 years will begin to pay off in a year or 2?

 

I'd agree entirely with your final statement.

[Alaska Darin]

So now we're quibbling over which parts of the government are more important.

Maybe you are. That's probably because you have no clue what you're taking about.

Cut one, grow the other, back and forth. What's more important is did the overall size of the government and did the government's spending increase or decrease? At least that's how I see it.

Well, since the number of government employees grew and spending increased...As it always does.

Why should we have continued to grow our military under Clinton? We weren't in any major wars and Russia had pretty well collapsed.

I don't have a problem with cutting the military. There's still plenty of bloat. The problem with the cuts under the Clinton Administration is they cut operational capacity and kept needless bureaucracy. A continuing government theme. But I wouldn't expect you to understand that, as you've apparently bought the Koolaid and drank the entire lot.

I've always kinda laughed at this notion that today's problems are due to some guy 10 years ago. Just how long does it take for an Administration's economic policies to come to fruition? Lord knows the stock market goes up or down every time some one sneezes. Yet, it takes 8+ years for Clinton's policies to take effect? Does that also mean that the economic growth of the 80's was due to the policies of Carter and Ford in the 70's?

Obviously you don't know much about the economy and I seriously doubt you could bring forth a single "policy" that led to the unprecedented growth of the 90s. Don't worry, you wouldn't be alone in it. Most "economists" can't face the fact that the entire thing was a fraud, nor are they facing the reality that today we are paying the piper for that fraud. This is because people don't like to admit they are wrong. They don't like to face the fact that stealing money from Social Security to pay for needless programs have a negative effect. Instead they believed that flat global energy prices would last forever, cheap money was good, the new Information Age would last for a century, and the birth of a new investor class would cover the fundamental flaw of government spending significantly more money than they take in.

 

It likely would have happened regardless of who was President or who controlled Congress. The economic stars lined up and everyone stayed greedy.

I'm not saying that all policy effects are seen immediately and that no latent effects are realized. I just don't understand why our current bad economy is because of Clinton. And that our economic growth in the 90's was because of Bush/Reagan. But our economy in the 80's was also Reagan. See how it all gets backed up kinda (because we all know Carter sucked balls)? Does that also mean that we don't have to do anything now, because Bush's last 8 years will begin to pay off in a year or 2?

The economy ebbs and flows. Always has. The government rarely sets forth any policy that helps - most of the time they are a severe hindrance. I've never stated that the 80s or 90s were due to any politician and I resent the implication that I'd be silly enough to believe something as complicated as the world economy would be due to any single factor.

 

We are facing the end of the Republic. The "Change We Need" looks exactly like the "sh-- We've Been Electing". If they pass this "Stimulus", it could very well be the final nail.

I'd agree entirely with your final statement.

I couldn't be happier.

[Dan]

Maybe you are. That's probably because you have no clue what you're taking about.

As I stated previously, I'm certain I'm not the only one here that has no clue what they're talking about.

Well, since the number of government employees grew and spending increased...As it always does.

Except that during the Clinton administration the net number of government employees and spending did not increase.

I don't have a problem with cutting the military. There's still plenty of bloat. The problem with the cuts under the Clinton Administration is they cut operational capacity and kept needless bureaucracy. A continuing government theme. But I wouldn't expect you to understand that, as you've apparently bought the Koolaid and drank the entire lot.

In reality, I drink ice tea with a greater degree of regularity. Although I did drink Kool-aid at my sister's house a few weeks ago. Not sure what that has to do with anything though. It's fairly universal in business, government, anything that the useless administrative bureaucrats are fired last. Not sure how we can single out any one Administration because of that.

Obviously you don't know much about the economy and I seriously doubt you could bring forth a single "policy" that led to the unprecedented growth of the 90s. Don't worry, you wouldn't be alone in it. Most "economists" can't face the fact that the entire thing was a fraud, nor are they facing the reality that today we are paying the piper for that fraud. This is because people don't like to admit they are wrong. They don't like to face the fact that stealing money from Social Security to pay for needless programs have a negative effect. Instead they believed that flat global energy prices would last forever, cheap money was good, the new Information Age would last for a century, and the birth of a new investor class would cover the fundamental flaw of government spending significantly more money than they take in.

I have no problem at all pointing out that I know very little about economics. Nor am I pretending to. I'm merely pointing out that there seems to be a moving scale as to what effects the economy and what doesn't.

It likely would have happened regardless of who was President or who controlled Congress. The economic stars lined up and everyone stayed greedy.

 

The economy ebbs and flows. Always has. The government rarely sets forth any policy that helps - most of the time they are a severe hindrance. I've never stated that the 80s or 90s were due to any politician and I resent the implication that I'd be silly enough to believe something as complicated as the world economy would be due to any single factor.

Excellent. So if nothing any politician ever does has any effect on the economy why are we all so worried about the current "stimulus" bill?

We are facing the end of the Republic. The "Change We Need" looks exactly like the "sh-- We've Been Electing". If they pass this "Stimulus", it could very well be the final nail.

Well looks like it's time to move to Canada, because they're saying now this "stimulus" bill will pass in some form.

I couldn't be happier.

It's always nice to make someone smile.

[Alaska Darin]

Except that during the Clinton administration the net number of government employees and spending did not increase.

Really?

 

From "Table 8.1 — Outlays by Budget Enforcement Act Category: 1962–2013"

 

1992: 1,381.6

1993: 1,409.5

1994: 1,461.9

1995: 1,515.9

1996: 1,560.6

1997: 1,601.3

1998: 1,652.7

1999: 1,702.0

 

Looks to me like overall spending increased each and every year.

 

So then I looked at Discretionary Spending:

 

1992: 533.8

1993: 539.4

1994: 541.4

1995: 544.9

1996: 532.7

1997: 547.2

1998: 552.1

1999: 572.0

 

Increased 7 out of 8 years. Facts suck.

 

On "net number of government employees:" Moving jobs from GS/GM/SES and DoD to contractor positions via the "Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994" made services the largest percentage of government procurement. They cut the obvious workforce so GAO and OMB could report smaller government, all the while increasing the number of people actually paid with taxpayer money.

 

The Brookings Institution estimated that "off the books" employment by the Fed was over 5.6 million in 1999, a number roughly equivalent to the number of people "on the books". But you keep repeating the folly.

In reality, I drink ice tea with a greater degree of regularity. Although I did drink Kool-aid at my sister's house a few weeks ago. Not sure what that has to do with anything though. It's fairly universal in business, government, anything that the useless administrative bureaucrats are fired last. Not sure how we can single out any one Administration because of that.

Your comedic acumen is as acute as your political.

I have no problem at all pointing out that I know very little about economics. Nor am I pretending to. I'm merely pointing out that there seems to be a moving scale as to what effects the economy and what doesn't.

Deep.

Excellent. So if nothing any politician ever does has any effect on the economy why are we all so worried about the current "stimulus" bill?

This is why we get "soundbytes" instead of news - because people like you are unable to think for themselves and instead gleen only what they want. Try concentrating on: "The government rarely sets forth any policy that helps - most of the time they are a severe hindrance." That is the most salient point of the quoted text. It's also the reason we should all be worrying about the government spending more money it doesn't have. A continuing theme that will eventually end America.