Obama’s Economists: ‘Stimulus’ Has Cost $278,000 per Job

[DarrinS]

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-s-economists-stimulus-has-cost-278000-job_576014.html




When the Obama administration releases a report on the Friday before a long weekend, it’s clearly not trying to draw attention to the report’s contents. Sure enough, the “Seventh Quarterly Report” on the economic impact of the “stimulus,” released on Friday, July 1, provides further evidence that President Obama’s economic “stimulus” did very little, if anything, to stimulate the economy, and a whole lot to stimulate the debt.

The report was written by the White House’s Council of Economic Advisors, a group of three economists who were all handpicked by Obama, and it chronicles the alleged success of the “stimulus” in adding or saving jobs. The council reports that, using “mainstream estimates of economic multipliers for the effects of fiscal stimulus” (which it describes as a “natural way to estimate the effects of” the legislation), the “stimulus” has added or saved just under 2.4 million jobs — whether private or public — at a cost (to date) of $666 billion. That’s a cost to taxpayers of $278,000 per job.

In other words, the government could simply have cut a $100,000 check to everyone whose employment was allegedly made possible by the “stimulus,” and taxpayers would have come out $427 billion ahead.

Furthermore, the council reports that, as of two quarters ago, the “stimulus” had added or saved just under 2.7 million jobs — or 288,000 more than it has now. In other words, over the past six months, the economy would have added or saved more jobs without the “stimulus” than it has with it. In comparison to how things would otherwise have been, the “stimulus” has been working in reverse over the past six months, causing the economy to shed jobs.

Again, this is the verdict of Obama’s own Council of Economic Advisors, which is about as much of a home-field ruling as anyone could ever ask for. In truth, it’s quite possible that by borrowing an amount greater than the regular defense budget or the annual cost of Medicare, and then spending it mostly on Democratic constituencies rather than in a manner genuinely designed to stimulate the economy, Obama’s “stimulus” has actually undermined the economy’s recovery — while leaving us (thus far) $666 billion deeper in debt.

The actual employment numbers from the administration’s own Bureau of Labor Statistics show that the unemployment rate was 7.3 percent when the “stimulus” was being debated. It has since risen to 9.1 percent. Meanwhile, the national debt at the end of 2008, when Obama was poised to take office, was $9.986 trillion (see Table S-9). It’s now $14.467 trillion — and counting.

All sides agree on these incriminating numbers — and now they also appear to agree on this important point: The economy would now be generating job growth at a faster rate if the Democrats hadn’t passed the “stimulus.”

[coyotes_geek]

Considering the relatively small percentage of the stimulus bill that was actually going to go towards procuring goods or services (a.k.a. things that might actually stimulate the economy), these results aren't surprising at all.

[boutons_deux]

If it's from anywhere from with 10 ft of Billy Kristol, we know damn well it's always wrong.

[DMX7]

How much of the stimulus was tax cuts? I thought tax cuts didn't cost anything. :rolleyes

[boutons_deux]

not only do all tax cuts cost nothing (esp those for the super rich and corps), they always pay for themselves, and more!, and make everybody richer.

[coyotes_geek]

How much of the stimulus was tax cuts? I thought tax cuts didn't cost anything. :rolleyes

Depends on whether or not you think "refundable tax credit" = "tax cut".

Someone owes $0 in income taxes and qualifies for a $1,000 tax credit. The government sends that person a check for $1,000. Is that a tax cut, or is it spending?

If you think it's a tax cut, then 40% of the stimulus was tax cuts.

If you think that's spending, then it's 20%.

[Winehole23]

If it's from anywhere from with 10 ft of Billy Kristol, we know damn well it's always wrong.Kristol is like a weathervane of wrong, but gets to keep sitting where he is on the strength of his pleasantness and imperturbable demeanor. Dude is cucumber cool, sounds totally smart and reasonable even when he isn't.

[boutons_deux]

the other always-wrong conservative fils pourri is Steve Forbes.

It was Kristol who got infatuated with pitbull bitch and got her ass out of Alaska.

[Winehole23]

He's a Fox analyst now. Nothing to do with WS.

[Winehole23]

Kristol's emeritus, right?

[DarrinS]

Does Kristol sit on The White House's Council of Economic Advisors?

[Winehole23]

Does he then? I'm sure I wouldn't know.

[Winehole23]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/cea/about/members/

[boutons_deux]

hashed out here:


Right-Wing Media Return To Using "Bogus" Math To Attack Stimulus

First, there's the bogus talking point that the Obama plan will cost $275,000 per job created. Why is it bogus? Because it involves taking the cost of a plan that will extend over several years, creating millions of jobs each year, and dividing it by the jobs created in just one of those years.

It's as if an opponent of the school lunch program were to take an estimate of the cost of that program over the next five years, then divide it by the number of lunches provided in just one of those years, and assert that the program was hugely wasteful, because it cost $13 per lunch. (The actual cost of a free school lunch, by the way, is $2.57.)

The true cost per job of the Obama plan will probably be closer to $100,000 than $275,000 -- and the net cost will be as little as $60,000 once you take into account the fact that a stronger economy means higher tax receipts. [

http://mediamatters.org/research/201107050015

[DarrinS]

"creating millions of jobs per year"

:lol


We'll see. If it doesn't create any, the WH can just say that millions were "saved".

[coyotes_geek]

The true cost per job of the Obama plan will probably be closer to $100,000 than $275,000 -- and the net cost will be as little as $60,000 once you take into account the fact that a stronger economy means higher tax receipts.

I like how media matters bashes the $275k number as "bogus math", yet apparantely the $100k number of what the "true" number "will probably be" requires no documentation of it's mathmatical origins whatsoever.

[TeyshaBlue]

I like how media matters bashes the $275k number as "bogus math", yet apparantely the $100k number of what the "true" number "will probably be" requires no documentation of it's mathmatical origins whatsoever.

MM prolly cribbed it from thinkprogress.borg.:lol

[TeyshaBlue]

As if there were any rock solid accounting of jobs created as a result of said monies...which there aint.

Hell, even the CBO says we can make a guess, but it aint even a good one.:lol

[coyotes_geek]

At least I can follow where the $275 number came from. Someone went to the official report on the White House website (http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/cea_7th_arra_report.pdf), and did some simple digging. They took the $666B that has been spent so far (pg 3) and divided that by the 2.4 mil jobs that whatever financial model said would not exist today had there not been a stimulus(pg 7) and just divided.

Since it's using to-date costs and to-date jobs, that certainly doesn't look like someone is trying to artificially inflate the costs by trying to hide multiple years of costs into a single year of benefits as mm suggests with the school lunch example.

[TeyshaBlue]

That 2.4 mil jobs is the poison pill of any subsequent analysis. It's a very shaky guess, and any analysis predicated upon that figure is fairly suspect.

[coyotes_geek]

True.

[ElNono]

Who said it was going to be cheap?

[Wild Cobra]

Why isn't it called the "Debt Stimulus Program?"

[ElNono]

Why isn't it called the "Debt Stimulus Program?"

Don't know any stimulus plan, including tax cuts, that didn't increase the debt.
Do you?

[Wild Cobra]

Don't know any stimulus plan, including tax cuts, that didn't increase the debt.
Do you?
No, but this one in hindsight, and even foresight by people like me, knew it would severely increase the debt.

[admiralsnackbar]

No, but this one in hindsight, and even foresight by people like me, knew it would severely increase the debt.If you understood Nono's point, why is this self-promotion necessary? Hand-outs increased the debt exactly as much as they were expected to.

[Wild Cobra]

If you understood Nono's point, why is this self-promotion necessary? Hand-outs increased the debt exactly as much as they were expected to.
On the contrary. The stimulus was suppose to offset the effects somewhat, but never did. Unemployment still remains high, and will as long as businesses don't have a sense of stability in regulations and taxes, and as long as we export high paying jobs over seas.

[Th'Pusher]

On the contrary. The stimulus was suppose to offset the effects somewhat, but never did. Unemployment still remains high, and will as long as businesses don't have a sense of stability in regulations and taxes, and as long as we export high paying jobs over seas.

:lol You supply siders are so funny. The private sector has been sitting on the sidelines with stuffed balance sheets. The problem is not on the supply side, it's on the demand. It's really not that difficult.

[admiralsnackbar]

On the contrary. The stimulus was suppose to offset the effects somewhat, but never did. Unemployment still remains high, and will as long as businesses don't have a sense of stability in regulations and taxes, and as long as we export high paying jobs over seas.

No, the stimulus was supposed to create jobs. Had it done so, it may have also created enough tax revenue to begin paying for itself, but it certainly wasn't passed as a deficit-reducing measure as much as an economic disaster-averting one.

The rest of your thought is beyond the scope of what I was addressing, but I will say it isn't the high-paying jobs that are leaving the country, it is hum-drum middle- and low-pay-scale positions, and even coddling legislation and tax-cuts to encourage corporations to keep manufacturing, CS, etc stateside hasn't worked (see: Rust Belt). The returns corporations get on product with minimum labor costs are too attractive, and the only way to compete with those #s short of legislation is to lower the US standard of living to match China's or hope for a crazy global energy crisis that makes shipping displace the savings on labor.

[Wild Cobra]

:lol You supply siders are so funny. The private sector has been sitting on the sidelines with stuffed balance sheets. The problem is not on the supply side, it's on the demand. It's really not that difficult.
The problem is government cannot fix things as they claim.

Supply Sider? How do you figure, or is that how your bias has me pegged?

[Wild Cobra]

No, the stimulus was supposed to create jobs. Had it done so, it may have also created enough tax revenue to begin paying for itself, but it certainly wasn't passed as a deficit-reducing measure as much as an economic disaster-averting one.

The rest of your thought is beyond the scope of what I was addressing, but I will say it isn't the high-paying jobs that are leaving the country, it is hum-drum middle- and low-pay-scale positions, and even coddling legislation and tax-cuts to encourage corporations to keep manufacturing, CS, etc stateside hasn't worked (see: Rust Belt). The returns corporations get on product with minimum labor costs are too attractive, and the only way to compete with those #s short of legislation is to lower the US standard of living to match China's or hope for a crazy global energy crisis that makes shipping displace the savings on labor.
The government does not create jobs. the free market does, when they see a need to hire employees.

There needs to be an increased demand before businesses will, hire employees. As things stand, the economy has taken a nose dive after democrats took control of congress. the reason is all the talk of regulation, taxes, health care, etc. Businesses are not willing to take the risk with ever changing rules which complicates things as well.

Businesses need a clear future before investing in the future. Else, they fail and go bankrupt.

[Th'Pusher]

The problem is government cannot fix things as they claim.

Supply Sider? How do you figure, or is that how your bias has me pegged?

Do you not support policy that looks to increase output and unemployment by reducing government involvement in the economy to allow the free market to operate? I honestly don't know. I saw your comment on businesses not having a sense of stability in regulations and taxes, and jumped to that conclusion. So you're a protectionist? No taxes except on foreign competition?

[admiralsnackbar]

The government does not create jobs. the free market does, when they see a need to hire employees.

There needs to be an increased demand before businesses will, hire employees. As things stand, the economy has taken a nose dive after democrats took control of congress. the reason is all the talk of regulation, taxes, health care, etc. Businesses are not willing to take the risk with ever changing rules which complicates things as well.

Businesses need a clear future before investing in the future. Else, they fail and go bankrupt.

So the Democrats are responsible? Is Lehman Bros in the Dem party? Goldman Sachs? Bear Stearns? Always with the partisan shit, as though the Dems and GOP aren't both bankrolled by the same interests to receive the same outcomes.

Businesses need robust lines of credit to invest in the future. Such credit is not available because banks are spending their bailout money acquiring assets at bargain prices instead of helping smaller-scale businesses and borrowers.

[Wild Cobra]

Do you not support policy that looks to increase output and unemployment by reducing government involvement in the economy to allow the free market to operate? I honestly don't know. I saw your comment on businesses not having a sense of stability in regulations and taxes, and jumped to that conclusion. So you're a protectionist? No taxes except on foreign competition?
I'm not completely for any one extreme you mention. I have advocated elimination of corporate taxes, but that is for two reasons. Making our products more competitive against foreign items, and more affordable as exports. Reason two is because there is double taxation to the owners of these corporations. The stock owners business is taxed, and then they are taxed again on the stocks as they receive income from them as capital gains or dividends.

I fully support tariffs as needed to keep US made goods competitive, but not so expensive as to hamper foreign good people want. Out founding fathers had it right in Article 1 section 8 to To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations.

To increase output, we need demand. Without demand, the price of sales will be lower than it should be, possible without profit.

Seems to me it's those who think these stimulus will work, are the supply siders. Adding supply with no demand.

I am in favor of reducing government involvement, but with care when it comes to regulations. I am in favor of complete elimination of some federal department. I am in favor of radically simplifying tax codes to the point of making it impossible to be a political football.

I could go on, but maybe that gives you a better sense of my thoughts.

[Wild Cobra]

So the Democrats are responsible? Is Lehman Bros in the Dem party? Goldman Sachs? Bear Stearns? Always with the partisan shit, as though the Dems and GOP aren't both bankrolled by the same interests to receive the same outcomes.

Businesses need robust lines of credit to invest in the future. Such credit is not available because banks are spending their bailout money acquiring assets at bargain prices instead of helping smaller-scale businesses and borrowers.
Say what you will, but about six month after the democrats took control of congress with their continual talk of increasing taxes and change, things started falling apart.

[ElNono]

No, but this one in hindsight, and even foresight by people like me, knew it would severely increase the debt.

I didn't need hindsight to know the tax cuts would severely increase the debt too.

[Wild Cobra]

I didn't need hindsight to know the tax cuts would severely increase the debt too.
My point is that the added jobs were suppose to offset the debt somewhat with the tax revenue they provided, and the added corporate taxes also. All this never happened, so far more of the stimulus remains as debt than if it worked as marketed.

[ElNono]

No, the stimulus was supposed to create jobs. Had it done so, it may have also created enough tax revenue to begin paying for itself, but it certainly wasn't passed as a deficit-reducing measure as much as an economic disaster-averting one.

The stimulus was passed as a way to try to pump the economy from a deep recession. Much like tax cuts were supposed to trigger a trickle down effect that was also supposed to pump the economy and create more jobs.

Both are different ways to apply the same Keynesian handout, and in hindsight neither worked and both increased the debt. I will always argue they're worth trying.

Your partisan revisionist history really is retarded. You can trace back the bubble that caused this recession as far back as Clinton, meaning it was coddled by both parties the same, when both parties have had control of both the legislative and the executive to this point.

[ElNono]

My point is that the added jobs were suppose to offset the debt somewhat with the tax revenue they provided, and the added corporate taxes also. All this never happened, so far more of the stimulus remains as debt than if it worked as marketed.

And the tax cuts were supposed to be offset by increased trickle down and new hires, creating new tax payers. All this never happened, so far more of the tax cuts remain as debt than if it worked as marketed.

[ElNono]

Say what you will, but about six month after the democrats took control of congress with their continual talk of increasing taxes and change, things started falling apart.

Correlation does not imply causation. Congress can't pass anything without the Republican president signing off the bills.

[Th'Pusher]

To increase output, we need demand. Without demand, the price of sales will be lower than it should be, possible without profit.



Where exactly do you think that demand is going to come from if not through government transfers? I don't understand why you think that redistributing wealth from the rich who save and invest (more increasingly in foreign markets as that's where the return is) to the poor, who spend everything they have on goods and services, will not increase demand. The government can, in fact, increase demand by simply transferring wealth through taxation. What's you're problem with that solution?

[Wild Cobra]

And the tax cuts were supposed to be offset by increased trickle down and new hires, creating new tax payers. All this never happened, so far more of the tax cuts remain as debt than if it worked as marketed.
I disagree. I believe the tax cuts started in 2003 and we had a rise in revenue as a percentage of GDP, until after the democrats took office and started scaring job providers with talks of increasing the burden of doing business. It went from 16.1% of GDP in 2004 to 18.5% of GDP in 2007.

[Wild Cobra]

Where exactly do you think that demand is going to come from if not through government transfers? I don't understand why you think that redistributing wealth from the rich who save and invest (more increasingly in foreign markets as that's where the return is) to the poor, who spend everything they have on goods and services, will not increase demand. The government can, in fact, increase demand by simply transferring wealth through taxation. What's you're problem with that solution?
It's a solution for losers. You are only attempting to shift who buys something. You take away spending power from the rich, and they spend less. You give it to the poor so they spend more. That is a zeros net gain. It's a solution for losers. I say we need to get the losers working, stop giving them handouts. More productivity and less siphoning. this is far from the fix, but it is part of the problem.

The root problems are not being addressed. We are outsourcing too much. We need to bring jobs back here.

[Wild Cobra]

Correlation does not imply causation. Congress can't pass anything without the Republican president signing off the bills.
Call it the "Fear factor."

Please don't tell me you think business people do not assess what they think will happen in the future. Democrats did nothing but promise Americans not so well of to take from those who are well off. That is the trigger to our recession.

[Th'Pusher]

It's a solution for losers. You are only attempting to shift who buys something. You take away spending power from the rich, and they spend less. You give it to the poor so they spend more. That is a zeros net gain. It's a solution for losers. I say we need to get the losers working, stop giving them handouts. More productivity and less siphoning. this is far from the fix, but it is part of the problem.

The root problems are not being addressed. We are outsourcing too much. We need to bring jobs back here.

How are we going to get the losers working if there is no increase in demand? Again, the problem is with demand, not supply. You need to increase demand. What policy, if any, do you suggest the government implements to increase demand?

[Wild Cobra]

Look at this graph. There was higher revenue after the tax cuts, and a sudden drop after democrats took control of congress.

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Politics/1934to2010marginal-points.jpg

[Th'Pusher]

Look at this graph. There was higher revenue after the tax cuts, and a sudden drop after democrats took control of congress.

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Politics/1934to2010marginal-points.jpg

So more tax cuts to increase demand? That's the policy you're recommending? So, you're a supply sider, just as I had you pinned initially. Cool.

[Wild Cobra's Surgeon]

Look at this graph. There was higher revenue after the tax cuts, and a sudden drop after democrats took control of congress.

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Politics/1934to2010marginal-points.jpg

Nice graph. I'm a photoshop guy myself, but I do enjoy an old school ms paint-job. :tu

[Winehole23]

Call it the "Fear factor."

Please don't tell me you think business people do not assess what they think will happen in the future. Democrats did nothing but promise Americans not so well of to take from those who are well off. That is the trigger to our recession.The Dems psyched everyone out?

[Wild Cobra's Surgeon]

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Politics/1934to2010marginal-points.jpg

That's the graph picture link. My man WC is chock full of credible sources and that's why I love him.

[DarrinS]

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Politics/1934to2010marginal-points.jpg

That's the graph picture link. My man WC is chock full of credible sources and that's why I love him.

A troll based on another poster? Talk about obsessed.

[ElNono]

I disagree. I believe the tax cuts started in 2003 and we had a rise in revenue as a percentage of GDP

Baloney. Receipts went down, in every measurable way. The only reason we had a strong GDP growth had to do with a property bubble that we know how it ended.


Call it the "Fear factor."

Please don't tell me you think business people do not assess what they think will happen in the future. Democrats did nothing but promise Americans not so well of to take from those who are well off. That is the trigger to our recession.

More baloney and revisionist history. Business didn't assess unfunded programs such as Medicare part D which are nothing but a bastard child of a GOP majority? How about trillions spent in wars which were not even budgeted? Tax cuts that were never offset with spending cuts? There was no "Fear factor" then? :jack

And the recession was here way before the presidential election. The TARP was signed by Bush Jr in early October 2008, elections obviously didn't happen until November. The country had been on a recession for a while at that point.

We get you hate democrats. There's plenty of valid things to rag on about this administration. Among other things, sticking too far to the right.
There's no need to talk out of your ass.

[ElNono]

Look at this graph. There was higher revenue after the tax cuts, and a sudden drop after democrats took control of congress.

I thought we already determined those numbers are cherry picked? Who are you trying to fool exactly?

You already posted the receipts numbers and they were obviously down when taxes were cut...

[admiralsnackbar]

Your partisan revisionist history really is retarded. You can trace back the bubble that caused this recession as far back as Clinton, meaning it was coddled by both parties the same, when both parties have had control of both the legislative and the executive to this point.

:lol Tell me you're fucking kidding me, since you're only reiterating what I said.

[boutons_deux]

"I believe the tax cuts started in 2003"

wrong, along with invading Iraq for oil, the Repugs' other priority was to ram through, with Senate reconciliation, huge tax cuts for the wealthy (themselves) in June 2001 (while ignoring outgoing Clinton's and FBI/NSA warnings about terrorism, planes into buildings, etc).

Any economic growth after 2001 was due to the credit boom fueled by the banks pushing credit cards by the billions through the mail, and the housing bubbled created by criminal Greenspan's low interest prices and predatory/fraudulent lending. People were using their homes as ATMs. That cash created demand. NOT the tax cuts.

Real household income and job creation remained stagnant, while household debt reached historic levels, throughout the Repugs reign of error.

[ElNono]

:lol Tell me you're fucking kidding me, since you're only reiterating what I said.

He's stuck on stupid, perhaps some repetition would cause the idea to finally sink in :lol

[Wild Cobra]

A troll based on another poster? Talk about obsessed.
I find it rather disturbing myself.

[CosmicCowboy]

I'm sure that those Koreans that built my free Obama Carts really appreciated the stimulus...

[CosmicCowboy]

hashed out here:


Right-Wing Media Return To Using "Bogus" Math To Attack Stimulus

First, there's the bogus talking point that the Obama plan will cost $275,000 per job created. Why is it bogus? Because it involves taking the cost of a plan that will extend over several years, creating millions of jobs each year, and dividing it by the jobs created in just one of those years.

It's as if an opponent of the school lunch program were to take an estimate of the cost of that program over the next five years, then divide it by the number of lunches provided in just one of those years, and assert that the program was hugely wasteful, because it cost $13 per lunch. (The actual cost of a free school lunch, by the way, is $2.57.)

The true cost per job of the Obama plan will probably be closer to $100,000 than $275,000 -- and the net cost will be as little as $60,000 once you take into account the fact that a stronger economy means higher tax receipts. [

http://mediamatters.org/research/201107050015

So you are saying that if a guy gets a "stimulus" job and keeps it for 5 years that it should count as 5 jobs?

[Wild Cobra]

I'm sure that those Koreans that built my free Obama Carts really appreciated the stimulus...
LOL...

I wonder how all that tax credit was split. How much went to the US retailer, how much to the US shipping industry, and how much to Korea.

Have a guess?

[CosmicCowboy]

LOL...

I wonder how all that tax credit was split. How much went to the US retailer, how much to the US shipping industry, and how much to Korea.

Have a guess?

Well, I actually had to pay shipping myself from California to Texas but the carts were "free". I'm guessing the importer clipped around 20% off the top and the rest went out of the country.

[Wild Cobra]

Well, I actually had to pay shipping myself from California to Texas but the carts were "free". I'm guessing the importer clipped around 20% off the top and the rest went out of the country.
I wonder if about 75% of the stimulus went to other countries the same way it sis in your case.

Sound right? 5% of it for shipping?

[CosmicCowboy]

I wonder if about 75% of the stimulus went to other countries the same way it sis in your case.

Sound right? 5% of it for shipping?

Well, electric carts are big and heavy. Carts cost around $7000 each and shipping was $500 each, but that $500 was my money and not stimulus money.

[Wild Cobra]

Well, electric carts are big and heavy. Carts cost around $7000 each and shipping was $500 each, but that $500 was my money and not stimulus money.
Oh...

So you actually paid for the cart after all.

Here I thought you got it for free.

[CosmicCowboy]

Oh...

So you actually paid for the cart after all.

Here I thought you got it for free.

Huh?

I got a dollar for dollar tax credit on the carts (paid around $14,000 and took a $14,000 tax credit)

Basically all I was out of pocket after my refund was shipping from California...so yeah, I guess I "paid" $500 for them if you really want to nit pick.

[Wild Cobra]

Huh?

I got a dollar for dollar tax credit on the carts (paid around $14,000 and took a $14,000 tax credit)

Basically all I was out of pocket after my refund was shipping from California...so yeah, I guess I "paid" $500 for them if you really want to nit pick.
I was being funny. For got the Blue.

I guess the simultaneous worked. It got you to spend money on a California shipping company instead of supporting your local area. We all know that California needs the money more than you and your area does.

What a deal... $14,000 worth of free overseas goods just to give the California economy some of yours!

[RandomGuy]

Look at this graph. There was higher revenue after the tax cuts, and a sudden drop after democrats took control of congress.

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Politics/1934to2010marginal-points.jpg

More supply side fail.

Just because you keep repeating the same debunked idea over and over, mouse, does not make it true the 100th time if it was shitty to begin with.

Shit, you had a guy with a PhD in economics tell you it was fucked up, just like the guy with the PhD in medicine who studies radiation told mouse he was full of shit.

Yet you both keep going.

Incredible.

Just to be clear:

Do you believe *this* stupidity too, or are you just playing devil's advocate?

[Wild Cobra]

I said years back that the democrats would cause economic failure. My predictions have come true as I said. Outside that, I don't care what you say.

I have been consistent on points that have come to pass.

Show me I'm wrong.

[RandomGuy]

Look at this graph. There was higher revenue after the tax cuts, and a sudden drop after democrats took control of congress.

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Politics/1934to2010marginal-points.jpg

The other thing is that you ignore the entire rest of the graph.

How do you explain the jump in revenues after the tax increases in the early 50's?

How do you explain then the lack of massive increase in revenues after the upper rate is cut rather substantially in the 60's and then in the 80's?

If your theory were to hold true, both things should be impossible, but there they are, right in the graph you yourself posted.

You did read the rest of the graph to see if it fit your theory right?

[RandomGuy]

I said years back that the democrats would cause economic failure. My predictions have come true as I said. Outside that, I don't care what you say.

I have been consistent on points that have come to pass.

Show me I'm wrong.

I said years back that washing my car would make it rain. I washed my car, then it rained. My prediction came true, as I said. Outside that, I don't care what you say.

I have been consistantly pointing out that washing my car makes it rain and that came to pass.

Show me I'm wrong.


:lmao

[Wild Cobra]

I said years back that washing my car would make it rain. I washed my car, then it rained. My prediction came true, as I said. Outside that, I don't care what you say.

I have been consistantly pointing out that washing my car makes it rain and that came to pass.

Show me I'm wrong.


:lmao
Predictable.

You know I'm right, so you sidetrack the issue.

[Wild Cobra]

The other thing is that you ignore the entire rest of the graph.

How do you explain the jump in revenues after the tax increases in the early 50's?

Very possible the end of WWII, with the return of soldiers working again and spending money here. Could be several other things too.


How do you explain then the lack of massive increase in revenues after the upper rate is cut rather substantially in the 60's and then in the 80's?

Are you deaf? I have maintained that revenues maintain an average of 18.3% of GDP. It is the unusual events that cause them to go higher or lower.


If your theory were to hold true, both things should be impossible, but there they are, right in the graph you yourself posted.

Believe that if you want.


You did read the rest of the graph to see if it fit your theory right?

What do you mean by read it? You would have to do extensive research of several types of key events to properly surmise anything. Recent history is more fresh on our minds.

My point anyway is to show that taxing the rich more does not increase government revenue. That the revenue the government gets is seldom outside a narrow margin. Actual tax rates do not interfere with the revenue as much as uncertainty does. When a business/corporation know how to plan, they can.

Where am I wrong about that? What basis does this historical fact have to tell us taxing the rich more is good?

[George Gervin's Afro]

Very possible the end of WWII, with the return of soldiers working again and spending money here. Could be several other things too.

Are you deaf? I have maintained that revenues maintain an average of 18.3% of GDP. It is the unusual events that cause them to go higher or lower.

Believe that if you want.

What do you mean by read it? You would have to do extensive research of several types of key events to properly surmise anything. Recent history is more fresh on our minds.

My point anyway is to show that taxing the rich more does not increase government revenue. That the revenue the government gets is seldom outside a narrow margin. Actual tax rates do not interfere with the revenue as much as uncertainty does. When a business/corporation know how to plan, they can.

Where am I wrong about that? What basis does this historical fact have to tell us taxing the rich more is good?




Ben Stein

....but the data is very clear that we had higher rates of economic growth in the 40s, 50s, 60s and 70s when we had higher taxes. The era of very low Bush 43 taxes has correlated with a low period in productivity growth and a low period of economic growth. You cannot correlate low taxes with high productivity. It just can't be done.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/oreilly/transcript/ben-stein-we-must-raise-taxes-rich#ixzz1RM0K17Kk


Do I believe a partisan hack on this board... or a repsected right wing economist...

[TeyshaBlue]

Predictable.

You know I'm right, so you sidetrack the issue.

No, you're so unbelivably mypoic that you fail to see the irony in RG's post. Sidetrack?

He pointed out a correlation between washing his car and rain. You pointed out a correlation between the economy tanking and some perceived Democratic "control" of Congress.

You have not established one iota of causation.

[fyatuk]

I said years back that washing my car would make it rain. I washed my car, then it rained.

No no no. It rains when I plan to mow my yard. Hasn't failed in 5 years. Everytime I try and mow my yard, it rains. It's why I've usually ended up paying someone to do it on the spur of the moment. Although I did manage to sneak it in earlier this year (it rained that night).

Which reminds me, people in San Antonio should expect rain on Saturday ;)

[Blake]

No, you're so unbelivably mypoic that you fail to see the irony in RG's post. Sidetrack?

He pointed out a correlation between washing his car and rain. You pointed out a correlation between the economy tanking and some perceived Democratic "control" of Congress.

You have not established one iota of causation.

Rather predictable for WC to sidetrack by claiming someone else sidetracked.

[Wild Cobra]

No, you're so unbelivably mypoic that you fail to see the irony in RG's post. Sidetrack?

He pointed out a correlation between washing his car and rain. You pointed out a correlation between the economy tanking and some perceived Democratic "control" of Congress.

You have not established one iota of causation.
Which came first?

I think you will find I maintained my position for some time, and also joked about the rain.

[TeyshaBlue]

You maintain a positon based on unsupported correlation?

This is joking about rain? Predictable.

You know I'm right, so you sidetrack the issue.

Unbelievable.

[LnGrrrR]

Very possible the end of WWII, with the return of soldiers working again and spending money here. Could be several other things too.

Don't you think it's a bit unfair to hand-wave away the evidence when it doesn't fit your theory, but point to every bit of data that DOES fit your theory as proof-positive that you're right?

[Wild Cobra]

Don't you think it's a bit unfair to hand-wave away the evidence when it doesn't fit your theory, but point to every bit of data that DOES fit your theory as proof-positive that you're right?
Believe as you wish.

How does redistributing wealth improve the economy?

Don't you think we need to return good paying jobs to our shores instead of outsourcing them?

Just how are any of theses attempts to spend our way to prosperity suppose to work when it isn't returning jobs?

I have shown that tax revenue changes very little vs. tax rates in the long term. We need more people making good wages to be taxed. Not bigger taxes.

[DarrinS]

Obama really might have made it worse

http://blogs.reuters.com/james-pethokoukis/2011/07/06/obama-really-may-have-made-it-worse/




The Republican charge is a body shot aimed right at the belly of President Barack Obama’s re-election effort: He made it worse.

No, not that White House efforts at boosting the American economy and creating jobs and “winning the future” were merely inefficient or wasteful, which they certainly were. Even Obama finally seems to understand that. “Shovel-ready was not as shovel-ready as we expected,” he joked lamely at a meeting of his jobs council.

Rather, that the product of all the administration’s stimulating and regulating is an economy that’s in significantly worse competitive and productive shape than when Obama took the oath in January 2009. He was dealt a bad hand, to be sure – and then proceeded to play it badly. At least, that is what Republicans have been saying. “He didn’t cause the recession as we know,” presidential candidate Mitt Romney said in New Hampshire yesterday. “He didn’t make it better, he made things worse.”

Team Obama offers a different narrative, of course. As the president said in his State of the Union address earlier this year, “Two years after the worst recession most of us have ever known, the stock market has come roaring back. Corporate profits are up. The economy is growing again. … These steps we’ve taken over the last two years may have broken the back of this recession.” He somehow failed to insert his usual boilerplate about the economy losing 700,000 jobs a month when he took office.

But Obama is correct, to a degree. The economy is growing (slowly) now and adding jobs (modestly) whereas neither was happening back in early 2009. Of course, economies in recession will eventually recover even without government action. So the question is whether Obamanomics helped, hurt or was inconsequential.

The centerpiece of Obama’s plan to “push the car out of the ditch” was the trillion-dollar (including interest expense on the borrowed money) American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. A recent article in The Weekly Standard determined that it may have cost as much as $278,000 for each job created. But that’s generous. Respected Stanford economist John Taylor, perhaps the next chairman of the Federal Reserve, has analyzed the actual results of the ARRA. Not what the White House’s garbage-in, garbage-out models say happened, but what actually happened as gleaned from government statistics. Taylor, simply put, looked at whether consumers actually consumed and whether government actually spent in a way that produced real growth and jobs. His devastating conclusion:


Individuals and families largely saved the transfers and tax rebates. The federal government increased purchases, but by only an immaterial amount. State and local governments used the stimulus grants to reduce their net borrowing (largely by acquiring more financial assets) rather than to increase expenditures, and they shifted expenditures away from purchases toward transfers. Some argue that the economy would have been worse off without these stimulus packages, but the results do not support that view.

Indeed, the results are horrifying. The two-year-old recovery’s terrible tale of the tape: A 9.1 percent unemployment rate that’s probably closer to 16 percent counting the discouraged and underemployed, the worst income growth and weakest GDP growth of any upturn since World War II, a still-weakening housing market. Oh, and a trillion bucks down the tube. Oh, and two-and-a-half years … and counting … wasted during which time the skills of unemployed workers continue to erode and the careers of younger Americans suffer long-term income damage. Losing the future.

Next, add in healthcare reform that Medicare’s chief actuary says will not slow the overall growth of healthcare spending. (Even its Obama administration godfather, Peter Orszag, warns that “more drastic measures may ultimately be needed.”) And toss in a financial reform plan that the outspoken and independent president of the Kansas City Fed says he “can’t imagine” working. “I don’t have faith in it all.” Indeed, markets continue to treat the biggest banks as if they are still too big to fail.

But wait there’s more. Obama created a debt commission that produced a reasonable though imperfect plan to deal with America’s long-term fiscal woes. But he stiffed it and then failed to supply a plan of his own, sowing the seeds for an impending debt ceiling crisis and making an eventual fiscal fix that much harder. One more step along the path not taken, along with pro-growth tax and regulatory policies that would have reduced policy and economic uncertainty and unleashed the private sector to invest, expand and create.

Elections have results. So do bad policies. Obama’s choices on taxing and spending and regulating, sorry to say, seem to have made things worse.

[LnGrrrR]

Believe as you wish.

How does redistributing wealth improve the economy?

I'm not an economist; I don't know.

However, revenues were higher in the 50's and 60's when the tax rates were much greater.

If your theory is that lower tax rates = better economy, you can't just dismiss every historical instance in which that isn't the case.


Don't you think we need to return good paying jobs to our shores instead of outsourcing them?

Sure do. I don't know exactly how we could do that without removing the minimum wage, or greatly decreasing the standards of American living. Even if we charged a smaller amt on corporate taxes than other countries, if they can get people to work for pennies on the dollar, they will.


I have shown that tax revenue changes very little vs. tax rates in the long term. We need more people making good wages to be taxed. Not bigger taxes.

Why not both?

[boutons_deux]

"He made it worse."

... which is a lie the Repugs are going to use, to blame their mismanaged ecoonomy handed to Barry, and then Repugs screamed like hell about the too-small stimulus as being too big (which should have been about $2T given the size of the Banksters' Great Depression). Now that the auto bailouts are hiring, and all honest evidence shows the stimulus was too small, but effective as far as it, the Repugs lie, lie, lie.

Note very carefully that the tea baggers and Repugs refuse to blame the depression on the financial sector, since they all work for and protect the financial sector.

Allah help us all if the Repugs sweep in 2012. They will continue to destroy the country at all levels, as we can easilty see now in the states the Repugs won in 2010.

[Th'Pusher]

How does redistributing wealth improve the economy?



I literally just explained this to you last night. Are you that dense? Redistributing wealth helps the economy by taking money from the rich (who don't spend it) gives it to the poor who spend every dime of it, which in turn increases demand. Demand goes up, those rich people make more money selling additional goods and services and hire more people. Everyone wins.

[Wild Cobra]

I literally just explained this to you last night. Are you that dense? Redistributing wealth helps the economy by taking money from the rich (who don't spend it) gives it to the poor who spend every dime of it, which in turn increases demand. Demand goes up, those rich people make more money selling additional goods and services and hire more people. Everyone wins.
But the rich do either spend or invest which does also improve the economy. Again, we need to return jobs to America. That is the key. Without that, we are going nowhere fast.

[Th'Pusher]

But the rich do either spend or invest which does also improve the economy. Again, we need to return jobs to America. That is the key. Without that, we are going nowhere fast.

No, they don't spend, at least not any significant portion of their overall wealth. They hoard. That why we've seen wealth being hyper-concentrated at the very top - a trend that began around 30 years ago when Reagan began his slash tax/deregulation mantra that has become the GOP creed. And while they do invest, that money is increasingly going overseas where there is a higher return. These people are not in it for American pride, the money goes to the place where it get's the highest return.

I have no problem increasing tariffs to bring back a little old fashion protectionism, but it's not going to bring our manufacturing jobs home dude. That ship has sailed.

[LnGrrrR]

But the rich do either spend or invest which does also improve the economy. Again, we need to return jobs to America. That is the key. Without that, we are going nowhere fast.

I don't think that necessarily makes sense. Let's say we've got a hypothetical million dollars.

Scenario A: One person has a million dollars.

Scenario B: The million dollars is split, with $10,000 going to 100 different families with incomes under $50K a year.

In which scenario do you think more money will be "spent" as opposed to "saved"?

[ElNono]

The rich invest where the biggest returns are. They DGAF about the economy or jobs.
There used to be a time when they used to invest long term in the stock market, and took some risks with their money. Nowadays, the bigger margins and lower risks are somewhere else. Things like the nano/micro second trades have boomed, which only indicate there's substantial money made there. That doesn't generate any long term investments or jobs. Hedging on the speculation of the futures markets, a completely intangible investment, is also where money has been. And it also only provides dividends, but no actual meaningful support for the economy or job creation.

The very rich are recession-proof, and don't help the economy at all. They just keep stockpiling for themselves. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but stop helping people that don't need help and don't want to help anybody else either.

[fyatuk]

and then Repugs screamed like hell about the too-small stimulus as being too big (which should have been about $2T given the size of the Banksters' Great Depression).

It's not the amount, but how it was used that was really the problem. The government effectively just absorbed states and companies debts. Previous methods that showed actual results involved directly funding projects (and insuring they actually took place) which forcibly creates jobs and purchases to stimulate the economy.

Anyone with half a brain knew that just about every suggestion the Reps or Dems tossed out was going to have an immensely smaller effect than proclaimed. It was ridiculous to even go through with them. Especially the one right after Obama's inauguration when the economy was already showing signs of recovering.

[boutons_deux]

"economy was already showing signs of recovering."

in Feb 09 the economy was recovering? and Barry killed it?

[Wild Cobra]

I don't think that necessarily makes sense. Let's say we've got a hypothetical million dollars.

Scenario A: One person has a million dollars.

Scenario B: The million dollars is split, with $10,000 going to 100 different families with incomes under $50K a year.

In which scenario do you think more money will be "spent" as opposed to "saved"?
You know what. It doesn't matter as you aren't creating jobs.

[Wild Cobra]

"economy was already showing signs of recovering."

in Feb 09 the economy was recovering? and Barry killed it?
Before that time frame. 2007 it was still recovering.

I'm talking about it dropping after the 2006 elections. Not 2008.

[Th'Pusher]

You know what. It doesn't matter as you aren't creating jobs.

You really are this dense aren't you? This is really basic, but you don't seem to be able to grasp the concept.

If the 1 person who receives the $1M decides to take his windfall and buy a $100K boat and saves the rest, that will increase demand by $100k and may require the boat manufacturer to add staff (i.e. create Jobs).

If the 100 people making 50k a year spend 90% of their $10k on any number of goods and services, that's $900k dollars on goods and services driving up demand and creating jobs.

[Wild Cobra]

You really are this dense aren't you? This is really basic, but you don't seem to be able to grasp the concept.

If the 1 person who receives the $1M decides to take his windfall and buy a $100K boat and saves the rest, that will increase demand by $100k and may require the boat manufacturer to add staff (i.e. create Jobs).

If the 100 people making 50k a year spend 90% of their $10k on any number of goods and services, that's $900k dollars on goods and services driving up demand and creating jobs.
Prove to me your assumption the rich man doesn't spend that money. How do you know he doesn't have a fixed investment plan and spends the extra?

Your assumption is no better than mine. No matter how you slice it, you are advocating theft. You just want the law makers to make it legal.

It's not your money. Stop asking for it.

[LnGrrrR]

You know what. It doesn't matter as you aren't creating jobs.

:lol See, you argue one thing, then when countered, bring up another thing as if your original point never mattered.

Tell me WC, aren't jobs also created through demand? If that million dollars were distributed, then the families spending it would be supporting and creating job growth in the areas that they spend their money, right?

[Th'Pusher]

Prove to me your assumption the rich man doesn't spend that money. How do you know he doesn't have a fixed investment plan and spends the extra?

Your assumption is no better than mine. No matter how you slice it, you are advocating theft. You just want the law makers to make it legal.

It's not your money. Stop asking for it.

Oh my. It was just an example. This article (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/10/opinion/10cox.html?ex=1218430800&en=a778f7824fd9e3ba&ei=5087&WT.mc_id=OP-D-I-NYT-MOD-MOD-M032-ROS-0208-HDR&WT.mc_ev=click&mkt=OP-D-I-NYT-MOD-MOD-M032-ROS-0208-HDR) by the New York Times explains explains that the top fifth makes 15 times more income than the bottom fifth. But when compared using consumption as the criteria of wealth the upper rich only consume four times that of the bottom fifth.

Again, if you want to increase demand, which you have already agreed is the core issue with the economy, you need to get more money in the hands of those who will spend it. My opinion is the best way to do that is through government transfers, which will in-turn increase demand and allow the economy to function at it's full capacity. This will ultimately benefit the rich as well.

[LnGrrrR]

Prove to me your assumption the rich man doesn't spend that money. How do you know he doesn't have a fixed investment plan and spends the extra?

Your assumption is no better than mine. No matter how you slice it, you are advocating theft. You just want the law makers to make it legal.

It's not your money. Stop asking for it.

Which assumption do you think is more likely? That the rich person will spend nearly all the million, or that the 100 families will spend all $10000?

[LnGrrrR]

It's not your money. Stop asking for it.

Why? Is all taxation wrong now in your mind?

[boutons_deux]

this Repug-campaign hit piece doesn't talk about the 10s of 1000s of state/county/municipal jobs saved by the stimulus funds.

Now the stimulus funds are stopped, we can expect those 10s of 1000s of public sector jobs to be lost. And along with those losses, reduced consumption, more credit and mortgages in default.

Barry's huge mistake was not going after the financial sector in 2009.

Financial sector gain is Human-Americans loss. An almost perfectly zero-sum game.

[Winehole23]

Is all taxation wrong now in your mind?Rhetorically, totally wrong. Taxes bad, tax cuts good is the whole Republican doxology.

[Wild Cobra]

:lol See, you argue one thing, then when countered, bring up another thing as if your original point never mattered.

Tell me WC, aren't jobs also created through demand? If that million dollars were distributed, then the families spending it would be supporting and creating job growth in the areas that they spend their money, right?
Yes, jobs are created by demand. However, the cheap stuff most poor people buy are made in China. Not here. Is it stimulating the Chinese economy you are advocating?

As for countering, I prefer not to focus on BS.

[Wild Cobra]

Oh my. It was just an example. This article (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/10/opinion/10cox.html?ex=1218430800&en=a778f7824fd9e3ba&ei=5087&WT.mc_id=OP-D-I-NYT-MOD-MOD-M032-ROS-0208-HDR&WT.mc_ev=click&mkt=OP-D-I-NYT-MOD-MOD-M032-ROS-0208-HDR) by the New York Times explains explains that the top fifth makes 15 times more income than the bottom fifth. But when compared using consumption as the criteria of wealth the upper rich only consume four times that of the bottom fifth.

Again, if you want to increase demand, which you have already agreed is the core issue with the economy, you need to get more money in the hands of those who will spend it. My opinion is the best way to do that is through government transfers, which will in-turn increase demand and allow the economy to function at it's full capacity. This will ultimately benefit the rich as well.
Their investments most often become capital to start new businesses and new jobs. It still doesn't create good jobs here in the USA to redistribute money. just more burger joints, retailers selling foreign made products, etc. We need to return manufacturing jobs, not service jobs. Service jobs will follow naturally.

[SnakeBoy]

However, the cheap stuff most poor people buy are made in China. Not here.

Have to disagree with you there WC. They tend to buy domestic beer and smokes.

[Wild Cobra]

Have to disagree with you there WC. They tend to buy domestic beer and smokes.
OK, you got me there. But I am also against buying drugs with tax payer dollars.

[LnGrrrR]

Yes, jobs are created by demand. However, the cheap stuff most poor people buy are made in China. Not here. Is it stimulating the Chinese economy you are advocating?

Hmmm... how curious. Why are so many manufacturing jobs in China? I mean, aren't all those rich people creating jobs in the US?


As for countering, I prefer not to focus on BS.

If you don't think something is a strong point, you shouldn't bring it up in the first place.

[LnGrrrR]

It still doesn't create good jobs here in the USA to redistribute money. just more burger joints, retailers selling foreign made products, etc. We need to return manufacturing jobs, not service jobs. Service jobs will follow naturally.

Jobs are jobs, in my humble opinion. I would like manufacturing to come back, but how do you suggest America competes for low-skilled menial labor, when said labor could be done in a third-world country by people getting paid dollars a day for long shifts and less regulations?

[Wild Cobra]

Hmmm... how curious. Why are so many manufacturing jobs in China? I mean, aren't all those rich people creating jobs in the US?

Why should they when liberal policies are pushing them away.

My God. I get tired of people's short sightedness. There is no single solution. There are several things that need to be done to work in conjunction with each other.


If you don't think something is a strong point, you shouldn't bring it up in the first place.
You're right. Then everyone refuses to talk about my stronger points. That's OK with me though. I repeatedly try to get answers on some things, never getting them, and people come back to things with less importance. That's when I know I won.

[ChumpDumper]

Why should they when liberal policies are pushing them away.Why did the manufacturing jobs leave when the Republicans were in control of the government?

[Wild Cobra]

Why did the manufacturing jobs leave when the Republicans were in control of the government?
They've been leaving for years. Free trade agreements you know. Ever since, I have been advocating reducing or eliminating corporate taxes. The talk from democrats of increasing taxes on the rich just accelerate this problem.

[ChumpDumper]

They've been leaving for years. Free trade agreements you know. Ever since, I have been advocating reducing or eliminating corporate taxes. The talk from democrats of increasing taxes on the rich just accelerate this problem.What is the actual corporate tax rate that is paid by businesses?

[Wild Cobra]

What is the actual corporate tax rate that is paid by businesses?
Average doesn't matter. not all have the write offs others do.

Do your own research for those numbers. A 35% marginal rate is too high. After the corporation tax is levied, then the stock holders pay tax also. The owners are double taxed.

[ChumpDumper]

Average doesn't matter. not all have the write offs others do.

Do your own research for those numbers. A 35% rate is too high. aFTER THE SORPORATION TAX IS LEVIED, THEN THE STOCK HOLDERS PAY TAX ALSO. THE OWNERS ARE DOUBLE TAXED.Just say you have no idea.

I doubt any company of size actually pays a full 35%.

[ChumpDumper]

lol average doesn't matter

[Wild Cobra]

I doubt any company of size actually pays a full 35%.
Agreed, but wouldn't eliminating deductions and lowering rates give a more predictable revenue? Stop some from paying nothing and others from paying much more?

You didn't address the double taxation issue.

[ChumpDumper]

Agreed, but wouldn't eliminating deductions and lowering rates give a more predictable revenue? Stop some from paying nothing and others from paying much more?I'm fine with that, but you're pretending everyone pays the full rate.


You didn't address the double taxation issue.No need to. If they cash out, they pay tax on the gain.

[Th'Pusher]

No need to. If they cash out, they pay tax on the gain.

A measly 15%. That's the first tax that needs to go up.

[LnGrrrR]

Why should they when liberal policies are pushing them away.

What policies in particular?

Also, if they don't care about supporting the American consumer, why should the American consumer care about how much they get taxed?



My God. I get tired of people's short sightedness. There is no single solution. There are several things that need to be done to work in conjunction with each other.

You seemed to suggest that low tax rates = more GDP, while throwing out other issues. Remove the beam in thine own eye, good sir.

Tell me, what several things could be done in conjunction to increase manufacturing in the States? I know you've mentioned tariffs before, which I support. What else?


You're right. Then everyone refuses to talk about my stronger points. That's OK with me though. I repeatedly try to get answers on some things, never getting them, and people come back to things with less importance. That's when I know I won.

Feel free to discuss what you think are your strongest points. I'm pretty sure you'll get replies.

[LnGrrrR]

You didn't address the double taxation issue.

Isn't a corporation considered a "person"? If so, that would go on to explain why the corporation itself could be taxed, along with the people who work for the corporation.

[mingus]

No, they don't spend, at least not any significant portion of their overall wealth. They hoard. That why we've seen wealth being hyper-concentrated at the very top - a trend that began around 30 years ago when Reagan began his slash tax/deregulation mantra that has become the GOP creed. And while they do invest, that money is increasingly going overseas where there is a higher return. These people are not in it for American pride, the money goes to the place where it get's the highest return.

I have no problem increasing tariffs to bring back a little old fashion protectionism, but it's not going to bring our manufacturing jobs home dude. That ship has sailed.

that's capitalism though and the consumer is responsible in many respects.

when i see a corporation that's not supporting Americas interests i say fuck them and stop buying from them. that's the beauty of capitalism. if more consumers took that approach, collectively, we'd have these CEOs and corporations on their knees. it's too bad more people don't boycott. it's effective but the problem (and genius) of most of the corporations is they've tricked us into thinking we need them, when in fact it works both ways.

[RandomGuy]

I said years back that the democrats would cause economic failure. My predictions have come true as I said. Outside that, I don't care what you say.

I have been consistent on points that have come to pass.

Show me I'm wrong.

I said years back that magic pink fairies would cause it to rain. My predictions of rain have come true as I said. Outside that, I don't care what you say.

I have been consistant on points that have come to pass.

Show me I'm wrong.

[RandomGuy]

I said years back that the democrats would cause economic failure. My predictions have come true as I said. Outside that, I don't care what you say.

I have been consistent on points that have come to pass.

Show me I'm wrong.

I said years back that sacrificing chickens to the flying Spaghetti Monster would cause the sun to go down. My predictions of the sun going down have come true. Outside that, I don't care what you say.

I have been consistent on points that have come to pass.

Show me I'm wrong

[RandomGuy]

Predictable.

You know I'm right, so you sidetrack the issue.

Unfortunately for you, the fact that your underlying assertion is a logical fallacy, Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/post-hoc.html), is rather central to your entire argument, and hardly a "sidetrack".

"tax cuts, therefore tax revenues than would otherwise be the case"

or

"democrats elected, therefore economic calamity"

Both suffer from the same lack of evidence for causality.

If you were better at analysing your underlying assumptions when trying to do this, you might have realized that before having it pointed out.

To support your "tax cuts = more tax revenues" case you cherry picked data from a chart, while ignoring the parts of the very same chart that actively refuted your assertion.

Sorry, not I am not convinced. Is all you have to offer is flawed logic, innuendo, and cherry-picking?

Or do you have something better?

[RandomGuy]

Look at this graph. There was higher revenue after the tax cuts, and a sudden drop after democrats took control of congress.

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Politics/1934to2010marginal-points.jpg

The other thing is that you ignore the entire rest of the graph.

How do you explain the jump in revenues after the tax increases in the early 50's?

How do you explain then the lack of massive increase in revenues after the upper rate is cut rather substantially in the 60's and then in the 80's?

If your theory were to hold true, both things should be impossible, but there they are, right in the graph you yourself posted.

You did read the rest of the graph to see if it fit your theory right?



Very possible the end of WWII, with the return of soldiers working again and spending money here. Could be several other things too.

Are you deaf? I have maintained that revenues maintain an average of 18.3% of GDP. It is the unusual events that cause them to go higher or lower.

Believe that if you want.

What do you mean by read it? You would have to do extensive research of several types of key events to properly surmise anything. Recent history is more fresh on our minds.

My point anyway is to show that taxing the rich more does not increase government revenue. That the revenue the government gets is seldom outside a narrow margin. Actual tax rates do not interfere with the revenue as much as uncertainty does. When a business/corporation know how to plan, they can.

Where am I wrong about that? What basis does this historical fact have to tell us taxing the rich more is good?

Indeed things take place outside that graph.

Besides the tax cuts there was the housing bubble, an unsustained run-up. You cherry picked the tax cuts while not mentioning that, then turned around and talked about the Democrats gaining control of congress just as that same financial crisis came to a head.

You attempt to use that graph to support your main point, "taxing the rich more does not increase government revenue." while at the exact same time acknolwedging the fact that events outside the graph affect revenues.

Answer this question:

What circumstance could lead to a reduction in top rates on the rich, while maintaining a stable amount of tax revenue, either in terms of % of the economy, or absolute dollars?

[DarrinS]

Whatever the Dems did or didn't do, it doesn't seem to be working.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/43682730

[boutons_deux]

Whatever the Dems did or didn't do, if the Repugs win in 2012, they will certainly CONTINUE to make the hated government worse, and life for Human-Americans much worse. Their fantasy is that "the sacred, worshipped free market self-correctingly solves all problems". They know, we all know, that's a lie.

[RandomGuy]

Hmmm... how curious. Why are so many manufacturing jobs in China? I mean, aren't all those rich people creating jobs in the US?



If you don't think something is a strong point, you shouldn't bring it up in the first place.

This shit starts sounding more and more like mouse and the building 7 asshats trying to prove controlled demolition for 9-11. Destroy their "points" piece by piece, and they constantly retreat to the next bit of poo that they flung at the wall to see if it stuck, and claiming that bit of poo is the "main point".

To prove ideas/theories about complex phenonena though, you need a lot more than one plausible point. When the weight of evidence starts stacking up against you, the scale starts to tip, even if you find one thing that supports your theory.

You can pick the cherry out of the pile of dung, but that won't make it something that most people with any commone sense would want to eat.

[RandomGuy]

Whatever the Dems did or didn't do, it doesn't seem to be working.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/43682730

Funny thing is that the cuts to government spending spurred by Republican legislatures/governors have cost 400,000+ jobs to be lost as well.

You might not be aware, but government spending is part of GDP, and an unemployed teacher is not differentiated from an unemployed construction worker.

The fact that unemployment from spending cuts spurred by Republican-led legislatures are clearly placed at the feet of conservatives and their misguided policies means that pointing to the unemployement rate is not something that someone who considers themselves as a proponent of conservatism should probably be doing.

Unless of course you think more unemployment is a good thing. Is that the case you are making?

[DarrinS]

Funny thing is that the cuts to government spending spurred by Republican legislatures/governors have cost 400,000+ jobs to be lost as well.

You might not be aware, but government spending is part of GDP, and an unemployed teacher is not differentiated from an unemployed construction worker.

The fact that unemployment from spending cuts spurred by Republican-led legislatures are clearly placed at the feet of conservatives and their misguided policies means that pointing to the unemployement rate is not something that someone who considers themselves as a proponent of conservatism should probably be doing.

Unless of course you think more unemployment is a good thing. Is that the case you are making?


It's good to have public employees, but public employees don't generate any new wealth.

By the way, no one is actually cutting any spending. I can't think of a time in my life when spending has ever gone in a negative direction. The battle is over the rate of spending increases.

[RandomGuy]

It's good to have public employees, but public employees don't generate any new wealth.

Teachers don't generate new wealth directly, no.

Do they generate educated people to think of, execute, and support businesses that do.

I would find it hard to believe that a business could create a lot of "new wealth" with illiterate employees.

Is that what you are trying to have me believe here?

[RandomGuy]

By the way, no one is actually cutting any spending. I can't think of a time in my life when spending has ever gone in a negative direction. The battle is over the rate of spending increases.

"no one is actually cutting any spending"

:lmao

[DarrinS]

Public employees are kinda like hiring a bunch of admin people in a private business. They are overhead. You WANT to hire the people that make/sell the products/services that drive profits. That way, you can grow and hire even more people.

[DarrinS]

"no one is actually cutting any spending"

:lmao

Show me a graph where govt spending actually descreases.

[RandomGuy]

"no states have cut any spending" is not a hard bit to start debunking.


Even as the need for state-funded services rose, states cut funding for services by 4.2 percent for
fiscal year 2009 and an additional 6.8 percent for 2010, according to estimates by the National
Association of State Budget Officers (NASBO). NASBO projects that state spending for 2011 will
remain 7.6 percent below 2008 levels.2 Indeed, the cuts that many states have enacted for FY2011
have been even more severe than those implemented in previous years. For example:
 An estimated 8,200 families in Arizona lost eligibility for temporary cash assistance as the
time limit for that assistance is cut back to 36 months from 60.
 Colorado cut public school spending by $260 million, nearly a 5 percent decline from
fiscal year 2010. The cut amounts to more than $400 per student.
 Florida’s 11 public universities raised tuition by 15 percent for the 2010-11 academic year.
This tuition hike, combined with a similar increase in 2009-10, results in a total two-year
increase of 32 percent.
 In Minnesota, as a result of higher education funding cuts, approximately 9,400 students
lost their state financial aid grants entirely, and the remaining state financial aid recipients
will see their grants cut by 19 percent.

http://www.cbpp.org/files/3-13-08sfp.pdf




WASHINGTON – Deep spending cuts by state and local governments pose a growing threat to an economy that is already grappling with high unemployment, depressed home prices and the surging cost of oil.

Lawmakers at state capitols and city halls are slashing jobs and programs, arguing that some pain now is better than a lot more later. But the cuts are coming at a price — weaker growth at the national level.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/02/25/government-budget-cuts-pose-threat-recovery/#ixzz1RXBOokyO

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/hersh_charticle_062711-02.png

I dunno. This could simply be a case of something going on outside of a simple graph, so I wouldn't point to it as definitive, but it is fairly suggestive to me.

I guess we will get to see how the Republican theory of "cut government spending everywhere to grow the economy" works out.

Sorry, but the Republican electoral success in gaining control of so many legislatures really will cut the wiggle room for you to blame Democrats/liberal ideas a few years down the road if it doesn't pan out.

[RandomGuy]

Show me a graph where govt spending actually descreases.

Your claim, your burden of proof.

Don't make me do your work for you again. I can only support so many lazy hacks.

[Winehole23]

Show me a graph where govt spending actually descreases. There's been a recession (a fairly severe one) and US states have constitutionally-mandated balanced budgets. What do you think happens? :lol

[Winehole23]

Your claim, your burden of proof.Yet the demand we do Darrin's homework for him never subsides. Maybe we should start using a different line.

[RandomGuy]

Public employees are kinda like hiring a bunch of admin people in a private business. They are overhead. You WANT to hire the people that make/sell the products/services that drive profits. That way, you can grow and hire even more people.

"The Great Job Creation Machine"
a vignette in one act by RandomGuy.

Cast:
DarrinS as CEO
SuzyQ as Disgruntled Temp

Act 1:
Scene opens, CEO seated at his desk, with a pile of paperwork in front of him. He is dressed immaculately in a gray pin-stripe suit, tie and sharply shined wingtips.

CEO (sits back in chair and looks out the window).

CEO: "I have finally done it. I have gotten rid of all the useless admin people, now watch my business grow, as my productive workers and I will seize the world by the throat and remake the world according to my new Theory of Business, HAHAHAHAHAHA!"

CEO (turns back to pile of papers, and begins to read the top one. Frowning, he reaches for the intercom, and buzzes Disgruntled Temp).

CEO: "My new Theory of Business will allow me to hire many more productive people, I am thinking we will need to hire at least another hundred workers, now that all that deadweight is gone!"

Disgruntled Temp: "Yes, sir, I will clear your calendar for the next four months."

CEO: "I don't have that much time, have Rhonda from HR... oh, wait, I fired her last week. I guess I can handle that, being the super-productive job-creator that I am. Nevermind."

Disgruntled Temp: "Yes, sir. Anything else sir?"

CEO: "Yes, actually, I have a report here that we were unable to make the last shipment, because we were short some parts when one of our vendors didn't ship when they were supposed to. Get them on the phone immediately, so I can tell them how unacceptable that is, and if they can't get us our parts, we will take our super-productive business elsewhere."

Disgruntled Temp:"Yes sir" (pause) "Line 2 sir."

CEO: (presses button on phone) "Consolidated Widgets? Yes, I have a huge complaint, and... what? You never got paid for the last 4 parts shipments? That's impossible! Fred in accounts payable always took care of that. ... Oh, you called for him and found out he was fired a month ago? Surely someone else could handle his workload, and jumped right on it, who else did you talk to? Ralph? He's fixes the coffee machine sometimes, maybe he gave the authorization to my full-time secre... oh. I'm sorry.... No, I am not trying to scam you. ... What? "Breach of contract"?" (Hangs up phone, wipes forehead)

CEO then gets up from the desk and walks to the window. Gazing out with his hands folded behind his back, his face contorts into a pained, irritated grimace, and he returns to his desk, reaching for the intercom yet again.

CEO: "I think we will need to see if we can get some orders out without the parts from Consolidated Widgets, get me the line foreman, so I can ask about how we can accomplish that."

Disgruntled Temp: "Sir, he turned in his notice yesterday, something about not wanting to work for free, if I remember correctly. (paper rustles) Yes, here it is sir, his forwarding work address was that of our chief competitor."

CEO: "I can't beleive he did that, get me HR... um, get me the payroll clerk, I want his last check docked!"

Disgruntled Temp: "Um, sir...."

CEO: (sighs exasperatedly) "Don't say it. Is there anyone in accounting that can handle this?"

Disgruntled Temp: "I will let Skippy the intern know, but the letter from the forman says that he hasn't gotten paid since you fired the payroll staff, and that half of his staff was in the same situation. Skippy may be able to fit it in between getting his braces off and his prom."

CEO: "Ok, at least I can get a lot of value out of someone I don't pay."

Disgruntled Temp: "If you say so, sir. Also, our largest customer is on line 1."

CEO: "Alright, then." (Presses botton on phone) "Hello, Frank, how are you? ... Not good? What's wrong, still can't get that chip shot on the back nine? ... Our last shipment had the locking bolt screwed in backwards? Impossible! When we installed the new presses, I told our HR staff to get everybody trained on the new, more productive equipment..."

(fades to black)

[RandomGuy]

Public employees are kinda like hiring a bunch of admin people in a private business. They are overhead. You WANT to hire the people that make/sell the products/services that drive profits. That way, you can grow and hire even more people.

Alternately this post reminded me of a bit from Hitchhikers Guide to the galaxy.

One of the "entries" into the Guide was the story of a civilization that got rid of all the "useless" people like telephone sanitizers and so forth. They took all the people they thought were useless and blasted them into space and had a golden era of productivity and prosperity, only to become extinct when they were struck by a virulent plague spread by dirty telephones. Funny and fictional, but I think it makes an important point about being careful about what one might brand as "useless".

Government is not as unnecessary as you, and many like you, seem to think it is.

[DarrinS]

Alternately this post reminded me of a bit from Hitchhikers Guide to the galaxy.

One of the "entries" into the Guide was the story of a civilization that got rid of all the "useless" people like telephone sanitizers and so forth. They took all the people they thought were useless and blasted them into space and had a golden era of productivity and prosperity, only to become extinct when they were struck by a virulent plague spread by dirty telephones. Funny and fictional, but I think it makes an important point about being careful about what one might brand as "useless".

Government is not as unnecessary as you, and many like you, seem to think it is.


I don't think they're useless at all. I don't think I said that, either. But since 6/7 Americans work in the private sector (and pay the salaries of the other 1/7), we may want to focus on growing that sector. Seem reasonable?

[MannyIsGod]

By the way, no one is actually cutting any spending.

How do you continually make statements like this? Its mind boggling. State governments across the country are absolutely SLASHING spending. You might as well say that the sun rises in the west.

[DarrinS]

"The Great Job Creation Machine"
a vignette in one act by RandomGuy.

Cast:
DarrinS as CEO
SuzyQ as Disgruntled Temp

Act 1:
Scene opens, CEO seated at his desk, with a pile of paperwork in front of him. He is dressed immaculately in a gray pin-stripe suit, tie and sharply shined wingtips.

CEO (sits back in chair and looks out the window).

CEO: "I have finally done it. I have gotten rid of all the useless admin people, now watch my business grow, as my productive workers and I will seize the world by the throat and remake the world according to my new Theory of Business, HAHAHAHAHAHA!"

CEO (turns back to pile of papers, and begins to read the top one. Frowning, he reaches for the intercom, and buzzes Disgruntled Temp).

CEO: "My new Theory of Business will allow me to hire many more productive people, I am thinking we will need to hire at least another hundred workers, now that all that deadweight is gone!"

Disgruntled Temp: "Yes, sir, I will clear your calendar for the next four months."

CEO: "I don't have that much time, have Rhonda from HR... oh, wait, I fired her last week. I guess I can handle that, being the super-productive job-creator that I am. Nevermind."

Disgruntled Temp: "Yes, sir. Anything else sir?"

CEO: "Yes, actually, I have a report here that we were unable to make the last shipment, because we were short some parts when one of our vendors didn't ship when they were supposed to. Get them on the phone immediately, so I can tell them how unacceptable that is, and if they can't get us our parts, we will take our super-productive business elsewhere."

Disgruntled Temp:"Yes sir" (pause) "Line 2 sir."

CEO: (presses button on phone) "Consolidated Widgets? Yes, I have a huge complaint, and... what? You never got paid for the last 4 parts shipments? That's impossible! Fred in accounts payable always took care of that. ... Oh, you called for him and found out he was fired a month ago? Surely someone else could handle his workload, and jumped right on it, who else did you talk to? Ralph? He's fixes the coffee machine sometimes, maybe he gave the authorization to my full-time secre... oh. I'm sorry.... No, I am not trying to scam you. ... What? "Breach of contract"?" (Hangs up phone, wipes forehead)

CEO then gets up from the desk and walks to the window. Gazing out with his hands folded behind his back, his face contorts into a pained, irritated grimace, and he returns to his desk, reaching for the intercom yet again.

CEO: "I think we will need to see if we can get some orders out without the parts from Consolidated Widgets, get me the line foreman, so I can ask about how we can accomplish that."

Disgruntled Temp: "Sir, he turned in his notice yesterday, something about not wanting to work for free, if I remember correctly. (paper rustles) Yes, here it is sir, his forwarding work address was that of our chief competitor."

CEO: "I can't beleive he did that, get me HR... um, get me the payroll clerk, I want his last check docked!"

Disgruntled Temp: "Um, sir...."

CEO: (sighs exasperatedly) "Don't say it. Is there anyone in accounting that can handle this?"

Disgruntled Temp: "I will let Skippy the intern know, but the letter from the forman says that he hasn't gotten paid since you fired the payroll staff, and that half of his staff was in the same situation. Skippy may be able to fit it in between getting his braces off and his prom."

CEO: "Ok, at least I can get a lot of value out of someone I don't pay."

Disgruntled Temp: "If you say so, sir. Also, our largest customer is on line 1."

CEO: "Alright, then." (Presses botton on phone) "Hello, Frank, how are you? ... Not good? What's wrong, still can't get that chip shot on the back nine? ... Our last shipment had the locking bolt screwed in backwards? Impossible! When we installed the new presses, I told our HR staff to get everybody trained on the new, more productive equipment..."

(fades to black)



Very creative.

I'll give you a real world example. And I'll make it short and sweet.

I used to work for a consulting company. Each of the consultants had a group of support staff. The more consultants we hired, the more support staff we would hire. If memory serves, there were about 3-4 admin staff for each consultant. Don't get me wrong, the admin staff were absolutely essential for the consultant to do their job, but would it make sense to start hiring 5-6 admin staff while simultaneously laying off consultants?

[DarrinS]

How do you continually make statements like this? Its mind boggling. State governments across the country are absolutely SLASHING spending. You might as well say that the sun rises in the west.


I'm talking overall expenditures. If you were planning to increase spending by 10% and only increased spending by 5%, then yes, I guess that could be seen as a spending "cut".

[MannyIsGod]

Overall expenditures for states are down, Darrin. I don't know how else to explain it to you. As WH pointed out, when you are mandated by your state constitution to have a balanced budget and your tax revenue drops due to a shitty economy then you have no choice but to cut spending. A lot of states have mandated balanced budgets. I think its far more likely that all 50 states have actually lowered their budgets over the past few years than not but I don't have data for all 50 states so I can't say for sure.

In fact, I just looked it up and every state outside of Vermont has an amendment that forces a balanced budget.

[LnGrrrR]

Unfortunately for you, the fact that your underlying assertion is a logical fallacy, Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/post-hoc.html), is rather central to your entire argument, and hardly a "sidetrack".


You know, that page is pretty good, but some examples blow as an indicators of logical fallacy.



Bill purchases a new PowerMac and it works fine for months. He then buys and installs a new piece of software. The next time he starts up his Mac, it freezes. Bill concludes that the software must be the cause of the freeze.


Assuming all other factors are the same, there is a very good chance that installing said software is the reason Bill's PC is freezing up.


The picture on Jim's old TV set goes out of focus. Jim goes over and strikes the TV soundly on the side and the picture goes back into focus. Jim tells his friend that hitting the TV fixed it.


If Jim knows that the picture will stay out of focus if he doesn't hit it (and I'm assuming he does), and he knows it will go into focus if he hits it, then it's not a logical fallacy. (It's not necessarily "fixed", more like "remedied" but the point remains the same.)

[DarrinS]

Overall expenditures for states are down, Darrin. I don't know how else to explain it to you. As WH pointed out, when you are mandated by your state constitution to have a balanced budget and your tax revenue drops due to a shitty economy then you have no choice but to cut spending. A lot of states have mandated balanced budgets. I think its far more likely that all 50 states have actually lowered their budgets over the past few years than not but I don't have data for all 50 states so I can't say for sure.

In fact, I just looked it up and every state outside of Vermont has an amendment that forces a balanced budget.


TX 2009: 186.4 billion
TX 2010: 187.3 billion

[MannyIsGod]

https://bi.cpa.state.tx.us/OpenDocument/opendoc/openDocument.jsp

Expenditures for 2010 in the State of Texas

121 Billion

https://bi.cpa.state.tx.us/OpenDocument/opendoc/openDocument.jsp

For 2011:

89 Billion.

That does count as a "cut", right Darrin? The 2012 budget is looking even slimmer for the state.

[MannyIsGod]

TX 2009: 186.4 billion
TX 2010: 187.3 billion

Would love to see your link for that amount. Federal money spent in the state is not part of the state budget, FYI. Also, that increase doesn't even keep up with inflation. I'm pretty sure that even if you did include federal expenditures the 2011 amount would be down considering the stimulus package is gone.

You really have to be obtuse or a liar not to acknowledge the incredible amounts of budget cuts we're seeing in every state in this country.

[DarrinS]

Would love to see your link for that amount.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/texas_state_spending.html#usgs302a

[MannyIsGod]

You really relied on a source that says this for the budget amounts?


2. State expenditure after 2008 and local expenditure after 2008 are “guesstimated” by projecting the latest change in reported expenditure forward to future years

I know its just Spurstalk but I'm actually embarrassed for you.

[MannyIsGod]

I see what your link does though. It doesn't just include state budgets but it looks like it adds in local spending as well.

However, even with all of that, here's the 2011 amount

$183.5 billion

Why did you omit that one?

[DarrinS]

You really relied on a source that says this for the budget amounts?



I know its just Spurstalk but I'm actually embarrassed for you.


My bad.


If this one official enough?

http://www.window.state.tx.us/taxbud/expend.html

[RandomGuy]

Very creative.

I'll give you a real world example. And I'll make it short and sweet.

I used to work for a consulting company. Each of the consultants had a group of support staff. The more consultants we hired, the more support staff we would hire. If memory serves, there were about 3-4 admin staff for each consultant. Don't get me wrong, the admin staff were absolutely essential for the consultant to do their job, but would it make sense to start hiring 5-6 admin staff while simultaneously laying off consultants?

Thanks.

I agree that you need the moneymakers, but don't think that people who teach kids, or inspect food/planes, or regulate solvency of banks/insurance companies/hedge funds really are all just dead weight.

The most glaring example of how important non-money makers are can be seen in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

The police that provide security don't in and of themselves create jobs, but provide the conditions for the people who do create jobs to get on with their work.

I don't think we are anywhere near the point where there are "too many" government jobs relative to the private sector, because I understand the value of the public goods created by what government we do have.

As to your real world example:

It depends, on how the company works.

To be honest, you probably should hire the consultants that provide the jobs.

But if you fire all the support staff, and the consultants themselves have to waste time on non-productive administrative stuff, then all the consultants in the world won't help much, depending on the mix and pay scales.

There is a reason why modern armies have a lot of "support staff". This strongly suggests to me that the benefits strongly outweigh the costs.

I am quite aghast at the stupidity of my own state's legislature, and how much they are going to gut the educational system. At some point, the state's inability to attract educated people, or people with kids, will start affecting the ability of businesses to find qualified people to work here, and I think the cuts being tossed around really will have that kind of strong effect a few years down the road.

We get to try out all the Republican ideas on how best to run things here in Texas with the GOP governor and supermajority in the lege. When it fails, the responsibility will not be hard to acertain. If it works as good as some say it will, hell, I might even switch parties and become a convert.

When it doesn't, though, you won't hear the end of it. >:)

[MannyIsGod]

Yes. There is a disconnect between the states numbers on the page I linked and those on the paged you linked, however. I'm not sure why that is although I have seen the higher numbers that I posted reported and I can't say I've ever seen the 90 billion mark reported.

[RandomGuy]

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/texas_state_spending.html#usgs302a



State & Local Spending by Function (click chart)
...
source: guesstimated2

:lmao

Seriously? That's what you're going with?

[DarrinS]

:lmao

Seriously? That's what you're going with?

Hey, I have him a link to the State comptroller.

[MannyIsGod]

I gave you a direct link to the budgets by the same office though. The link I showed you shows a 25% reduction in the 2011 budget. And that's just Texas.

[RandomGuy]

Hey, I have him a link to the State comptroller.

If you read the notes, the most recent *actual* data is from 2009.

Given the roughly $27bn hole in the 2012+13 bi-ennial budget, I would guess that his "based on historical factors" guestimate is materially over-estimated.

Spending will be cut in Texas, as it has all over the US. I will see if I can dig through manny's link and sift through other stuff as well. I think I downloaded the most recent budget proposal somewhere.

[MannyIsGod]

I do find it kind of funny that you sent me to a NET expenditures page, Darrin. This was right after you talked about total expenditures.

[RandomGuy]

SB 1 passes Senate, frustrates budget hawks
http://www.texasbudgetsource.com/


Senate Bill 1, the omnibus budget bill that cuts $4 billion in education funding, among other things, was passed by the Senate today by a vote of 21-9.

Aside from fund k-12 education over the next two years, SB 1 adds additional sources of state revenue with the addition of several new taxes and fees and creates a series of budgeting gimmicks that postpone certain financial obligations until the following biennium. The particularly noteworthy Amazon tax, which would force online retailers to pay sales taxes to the state, was included in the bill.

Other noteworthy highlights of the bill include: an increase in the cigarette “stamp tax”, which raises the price of business for cigarette distributors; speeding up of fuel tax payments and delaying transfers to the state highway fund; speeding up of alcoholic beverage taxes; sales tax prepayments; a sales-for-resale provision; and increased lobbying fees.

After the constant mantra of “no new taxes” from both legislators as well as the Governor, fiscal conservatives in Texas are likely not impressed with the expenses imposed by SB 1. A champion against the Amazon tax for months, Governor Perry is expected to concede defeat and sign SB 1 into law in the coming days.

I'm shocked. Shocked I say!

... and by shocked I mean not shocked at all that they weaseld out of doing what they said they were going to. Everybody with any common sense knows that the tea party bullshit is seriously stupid.

(edit)


If you have any questions about the budget or the budget process, please feel free to contact us at: [email protected].

Texas’ 2010-11 state budget, passed by the Texas Legislature in 2009, includes more than $182 billion in total appropriations and provides funding for dozens of agencies and hundreds of programs. Inside the state’s massive two-year budget—which spans more than 950 pages—is a complex mix of funding formulas and budget jargon, often only understood by insiders and experts.

To help the average Texan get a better understanding of the state’s fiscal picture, TexasBudgetSource has carefully studied Senate Bill 1 and explained it in abbreviated terms. In addition, we have also compared it with past budgets to give this biennium’s budget some context.

Interesting website.

[LnGrrrR]

Public employees are kinda like hiring a bunch of admin people in a private business. They are overhead. You WANT to hire the people that make/sell the products/services that drive profits. That way, you can grow and hire even more people.

That's the same argument people use for network security, until they get hacked and have to pay millions in a lawsuit.

[DarrinS]

That's the same argument people use for network security, until they get hacked and have to pay millions in a lawsuit.

Overhead is necessary, but it's still overhead. Should a company hire 20 network security pros when they only need two?

[Winehole23]

I do find it kind of funny that you sent me to a NET expenditures page, Darrin. This was right after you talked about total expenditures.Weaselly. That's all part of his craft and his art. Did you like how he tried to claim the kill earlier on? Cracked my old ass up. :lol

[Winehole23]

(sorry, LED thread leakage)

[LnGrrrR]

Overhead is necessary, but it's still overhead. Should a company hire 20 network security pros when they only need two?

Of course not. But many (smaller) businesses tend to discount spending on security because it doesn't "do anything". It's not giving them more bandwidth, more access, etc etc.

I don't think that all government workers are "overhead" workers, which is what I thought you were implying.

[Wild Cobra]

Of course not. But many (smaller) businesses tend to discount spending on security because it doesn't "do anything". It's not giving them more bandwidth, more access, etc etc.

I don't think that all government workers are "overhead" workers, which is what I thought you were implying.
Yet the peanut counters continue to find new ways to count peanuts to justify their useless jobs.

[LnGrrrR]

Yet the peanut counters continue to find new ways to count peanuts to justify their useless jobs.

Why not blame the people who keep hiring the peanut counters?

[RandomGuy]

Yet the peanut counters continue to find new ways to count peanuts to justify their useless jobs.

It has been my experience counting peanuts for a living that the businesses that put the least emphasis on counting their peanuts tend to make very little money and very often founder and sink, because they don't how how many peanuts it costs them to actually run their business, and set their prices below that unknowingly.

Every bookkeeping client I had ended up making far more money, even with the extra added expense of my $20/hr help as a mere grad student, than they were making before I got involved. Invariably, they were doing something that made no sense once you tallied up the peanuts.

Accountants don't get to charge $150-$400 hr for nothing. :p:

[Wild Cobra]

It has been my experience counting peanuts for a living that the businesses that put the least emphasis on counting their peanuts tend to make very little money and very often founder and sink, because they don't how how many peanuts it costs them to actually run their business, and set their prices below that unknowingly.

Every bookkeeping client I had ended up making far more money, even with the extra added expense of my $20/hr help as a mere grad student, than they were making before I got involved. Invariably, they were doing something that made no sense once you tallied up the peanuts.

Accountants don't get to charge $150-$400 hr for nothing. :p:
Are you saying that the bureaucratic nature of government jobs I was referring to are as good as the accountants like you?

[RandomGuy]

Are you saying that the bureaucratic nature of government jobs I was referring to are as good as the accountants like you?

No.

Some of them are worth more.

Ribbing aside, most are not.

But then, most private sector jobs aren't either.

Somebody has to enforce building codes, inspect meat, etc.

We have a complex economy, with a lot of complex needs for things that can't be efficiently or ethically handled by the private sector.

I'm not advocating the kind of strangling Soviet beaurocracy that stunted Russia for decades, but neither do I buy the argument that is where we are at now.

[Winehole23]

maybe the stimulus should have been bigger:


After the 2008 financial crisis, old-fashioned Keynesians offered a simple fix: Stimulate the economy. With idle capacity and unemployed workers, nations could restore economic production at essentially zero real cost. It helped the U.S. in the Great Depression and it could help the U.S. in the Great Recession too. But during and immediately after the crisis, neoliberal and conservative forces attacked the Keynesian school of thought from multiple directions. Stimulus couldn't work because of some weird debt trigger condition, or because it would cause hyperinflation, or because unemployment was "structural," or because of a "skills gap," or because of adverse demographic trends.


Well going on 10 years later, the evidence is in: The anti-Keynesian forces have been proved conclusively mistaken on every single argument. Their refusal to pick up what amounted to a multiple-trillion-dollar bill sitting on the sidewalk is the greatest mistake of economic policy analysis since 1929 at least.



the decade of pointless austerity has severely harmed the American economy — leaving us perhaps $3 trillion (https://theweek.com/articles/774762/democrats-are-helping-republicans-unleash-wall-street-what-could-wrong) below the previous growth trend. Through a combination of bad faith, motivated reasoning, and sheer incompetence, austerians have directly created the problem their entire program was supposed to avoid. https://theweek.com/articles/789956/biggest-policy-mistake-last-decade

[boutons_deux]

Repugs austerity (block and/or minimize) was not their mistake

It was eg Bitch McC's clear statement/objective to keep the economy as shitty as possible so to implement Repugs' priority of defeating Obama/2016 with bad economy.

Secondly, according to the oligarchy/Repug strategy, having preached for 35+ years that "govt IS the problem", that govt simply cannot and must not do good, and all must come from Capitalism/BigCorp, they had to block the govt doing good For The People.

[Spurtacular]

In other words, the government could simply have cut a $100,000 check to everyone whose employment was allegedly made possible by the “stimulus,” and taxpayers would have come out $427 billion ahead. (http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-s-economists-stimulus-has-cost-278000-job_576014.html)

Media never nuffin to say about this hoax.

[Winehole23]

actually, I was in favor of front-loaded stimulus.

I doubt you and Darrin would have been.