Who are you watching for your election night coverage?

Here is your first clue Chucky -- governments don't create jobs. Originally Posted by pjorourke

PJ, you can't be serious.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 created or "saved" about 3.5 million jobs.

Don't you remember?

Now nothing will get done for 2 years. It'll be a stalemate in the Congress. Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

You say that like it is a bad thing. Originally Posted by pjorourke

LOL! And folks say a conservative is never an optimist. Getting excited that the only reform will be incremental reform is about as close as they ever get to a "the glass is half-full" epiphany.

Here is your first clue Chucky -- governments don't create jobs. The best they can do is stay out of the way of people creating jobs. Originally Posted by pjorourke

That is partly true. The people demand things such as security and roads and what not and government provides it. That creates jobs. The military creates jobs. Like it or not, that is a fact.

That's what Obama didn't do and why this recession is not recovering.
Originally Posted by pjorourke

That is beyond false... People overspent. They are in debt. They are having to pay down debt and not spending as much. We had a housing bubble that transfered wealth from consumers to people holding loans on their homes.

Obama had nothing to do with that.

The question became would these debt holders be made whole or suffer the fate of any other person that made a bad loan to a relative. Some in the counntry and even in this forum think making that debt whole is the best possible solution even if it meant that the taxpayers are on the hook for it. I think not now and thought not then.

Obama did have a say in this and dropped the ball IMHO. He bailed them out and is catching it at the polls. As well he should.

PJ, you can't be serious.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 created or "saved" about 3.5 million jobs.

Don't you remember? Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

How many jobs did the bank bailout save?

What about this QE2?

Here is your first clue Chucky -- governments don't create jobs. The best they can do is stay out of the way of people creating jobs. Originally Posted by pjorourke

So, PJ, how many people do you employ and how many more do you intend to employ? If you're not a part of the solution, you're a part of the problem.

[And BTW, I believe the US Gov has more employees than any single private employer. And they hire every single day.]

[And BTW, I believe the US Gov has more employees than any single private employer. And they hire every single day.] Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, Charles you to are going to bust their bubble. Almost all corporation suck off the government tit in some form or other. PJ is under the illusion that the GOP will cut spending. Nawwwwwwwwww that can't be it. Maybe he thinks they will cut taxes and that will bring down the deficit. No already tried that with Bush 8 years ago. That didn't work. I'm not sure what he thinks , I have trouble pinning him or any other small government type down when you ask them to actually make cuts!

Here is your first clue Chucky -- governments don't create jobs. The best they can do is stay out of the way of people creating jobs. That's what Obama didn't do and why this recession is not recovering.

Hallelujah! Lets hear it for divided government. Originally Posted by pjorourke

Hallelujah indeed. Thank the heavens above I woke up a winner this morning. Usually it is a curse if I vote for you. Lol Everyone I vote for usually is guaranteed to loose.

And well, didn't Obama create jobs for a bunch of his hommies? Of course those are the only jobs he positively affected IMHO. And don’t forget employees that work for his publisher and in the tourist industry in Spain………

Since I voted Republican this year, and my TV is only hooked up to my DVD player, I chose to watch the returns at a bastion of Republicanism. A big time, Houston Rodeo / oil man hang out where the Fox News channel is memorized by all the patrons (Except me of course). Ah, but I got bored about 9:30 and headed home.

Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, Charles you to are going to bust their bubble. Almost all corporation suck off the government tit in some form or other. PJ is under the illusion that the GOP will cut spending. Nawwwwwwwwww that can't be it. Maybe he thinks they will cut taxes and that will bring down the deficit. No already tried that with Bush 8 years ago. That didn't work. I'm not sure what he thinks , I have trouble pinning him or any other small government type down when you ask them to actually make cuts! Originally Posted by WTF

Yeah, this new class will learn a quick lesson from all the corps on the gov tit when they try to cancel those lucrative contracts. The retaliation will be so swift and brutal, they'll never know what hit them.

So, PJ, how many people do you employ and how many more do you intend to employ? If you're not a part of the solution, you're a part of the problem. Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

I actually did create a job in the last year, but thats not really germane.

[And BTW, I believe the US Gov has more employees than any single private employer. And they hire every single day.]

You are confusing employing people with creating a job -- i.e., a position whose output is worth more than its cost.

The flaw in your reasoning is the assumption that we don't have enough government services and that having more would create more value. Lets try a simple example. If the government hired say 200 new staff at the IRS (lets be generous and assume that the fully loaded cost of these people is only $100K each) and that through their efforts, $22 million in new taxes were collected. Would that be a boon to the economy? Afterall, they brought in 10% more than they cost. The answer is hell no! They didn't produce any service, they didn't make anything, they didn't create any GDP. They just switched money from one pocket to another. Society's wealth did not increase in any way.

Now granted, that example was simple to make a point. And there are some things that can be purchased through taxes more efficiently (can, but not always) -- roads are a decent example, although a strong case can be made for private funding as well. But these things only produce value if the output is more than the input. Will having a road between Bumfuck Iowa and Nowhere Nebraska enable commerce that wouldn't have happened without it. Will it save fuel, lives, etc.? Unless the answer is yes, you may as well hire one group of people to dig holes and another to fill them in. You are destroying value either way. The big difference is that the private sector makes these decisions because they make economic sense -- the old bugaboo the profit motive. Governments make these decisions because the residents of Bumfuck and Nowhere thinks its a cool idea and they have the votes to pull it off whether it makes sense or not.

PJ is under the illusion that the GOP will cut spending. Originally Posted by WTF

Sadly, I'm not that optimistic. But that is why I cheered a few of the bomb-throwers that came out in this last election.

The problem is that the Dems come out and say -- "We want to spend a bajillion dollars curing the evil scourge of dandruff. Too many people are suffering from this horrible malady." (Or the Republicans say we need to kick this dictators ass.)

A moderate counters: "yes it is a horrible problem. But we can't afford that much. Lets just spend half a bajillion", then they compromise at 90% of a bajillion.

We need somebody to represent sanity and say: "Fuck you -- we aren't going to spent a damn dime -- that is not a proper function of the federal government. In fact we are going to cut the fucking half bajillion you are already wasting on this crap."

The flaw in your reasoning is the assumption that we don't have enough government services and that having more would create more value. Lets try a simple example. If the government hired say 200 new staff at the IRS (lets be generous and assume that the fully loaded cost of these people is only $100K each) and that through their efforts, $22 million in new taxes were collected. Would that be a boon to the economy? Afterall, they brought in 10% more than they cost. The answer is hell no! They didn't produce any service, they didn't make anything, they didn't create any GDP. They just switched money from one pocket to another. Society's wealth did not increase in any way. Originally Posted by pjorourke

The outstanding flaw in this reasoning is that you don't think any progress has been made unless it contributes to the GDP.

In you example, 200 jobs were created and 200 new employees came along. Despite the fact they made the gov't money, you're missing all the secondary financial generation. They paid taxes (property & sales). They bought items from manufacturers. They bought new homes; new cars. They sank close to their full income into the their communities. That boosts the economy.

You say, "Society's wealth did not increase in any way." I beg to differ. And so would the retailers, stores, restaurants and other businesses that gained from the expenditure of this income.

The outstanding flaw in this reasoning... Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

The outstanding flaw in your reasoning is that you apparently think you can increase the prosperity of a nation by having the government spend borrowed, taxed, or newly-printed money on unproductive activity, even when it's already running a very large structural deficit. That's been tried many times. Never in history has it worked.

Despite the fact they made the gov't money... Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

If they "made the government money" in the fashion decsribed in PJ's example, that means they taxed it from the productive private sector. The money would have otherwise been spent, invested, or added to the pool of capital ultimately available for lending to businesses and entrepreneurs.

The problem with lovers of big government is that they tend to look at the private sector as the Huns looked at a city -- something to be sacked and plundered.

In you example, 200 jobs were created and 200 new employees came along. Despite the fact they made the gov't money, you're missing all the secondary financial generation. They paid taxes (property & sales). They bought items from manufacturers. They bought new homes; new cars. They sank close to their full income into the their communities. That boosts the economy. Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

How is that different/better than the spending that would have been done by the people who had the money originally?

Yes, value can be created with out adding to GDP -- say for example the happiness that comes from a grandchild. But the 200 "jobs" I described are not contributing any incremental value to society, let alone economic value -- which is really really important in trying to get out of a recession.

That is the trouble with the Bumfuck/Nowhere thinking -- no value relative to the cost.

How is that different/better than the spending that would have been done by the people who had the money originally?

Yes, value can be created with out adding to GDP -- say for example the happiness that comes from a grandchild. But the 200 "jobs" I described are not contributing any incremental value to society, let alone economic value -- which is really really important in trying to get out of a recession.

That is the trouble with the Bumfuck/Nowhere thinking -- no value relative to the cost. Originally Posted by pjorourke

Tell that to the city of El Paso, experiencing an increase in soldiers at Ft. Bliss. Economic growth is booming.

See http://www.elpasotexas.gov/RGMP/intro.html.

Sadly, I'm not that optimistic. But that is why I cheered a few of the bomb-throwers that came out in this last election.

The problem is that the Dems come out and say -- "We want to spend a bajillion dollars curing the evil scourge of dandruff. Too many people are suffering from this horrible malady." (Or the Republicans say we need to kick this dictators ass.)

A moderate counters: "yes it is a horrible problem. But we can't afford that much. Lets just spend half a bajillion", then they compromise at 90% of a bajillion.

We need somebody to represent sanity and say: "Fuck you -- we aren't going to spent a damn dime -- that is not a proper function of the federal government. In fact we are going to cut the fucking half bajillion you are already wasting on this crap." Originally Posted by pjorourke

Yes but who is going to get elected if they tell grandma that they are going to cut her benefits and make cuts to Defense? The Tea Folks aren't doing that and it was their big year. They think repealing Obamacare is the cure. Obamacare waas the sympton.

The problem is not government it is how ignorant we as a society are. We want things without having to pay the full costs. Our so called leaders only tell us what we want to hear to get elected.