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

[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 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"

[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"

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...#ixzz1RXBOokyO



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 cons utionally-mandated balanced budgets. What do you think happens?

[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 compe or."

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) " o, 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 compe or."

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) " o, 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 cons ution to have a balanced budget and your tax revenue drops due to a ty 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, 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 cons ution to have a balanced budget and your tax revenue drops due to a ty 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/OpenDo ...enDo ent.jsp

Expenditures for 2010 in the State of Texas

121 Billion

https://bi.cpa.state.tx.us/OpenDo ...enDo ent.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/....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?