My God, you are an idiot.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Larry Summers:



I really don't understand the Republican response to this. I mean, I know what it is, but it's four miles wide and half an inch deep.

I can't listen to that guy. He were just too much of an asshole while at Hahvahd.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

The response is as follows: Government is extremely bad at spending money in an efficient manner. We spent a trillion dollars in stimulus and have very little to show for it. The cost per job was something like $250K. That is a joke. On top of that, the Admin spent its first 2 years, not on jobs, but on . . . . another entitlement that will not create jobs. So for the Johnie come latelies to put this on Rs is a joke.

I do not think Larry Summers counts as a Johnie come lately here.

As for the rest of your response, who else is going to build and maintain bridges, airports and schools? You are making a general argument against specific types of spending. Who is going to make those required infrastructure investments more efficiently? And who can finance them at the same low cost?

As for your trillion, nearly half of it was tax cuts. Another big chunk block grants to states. I don't know where your $250K comes from, but is it adjusted for that?

As for whether health care reform creates jobs, I'm not sure how you get to that conclusion. If it's a big handout that's going to result in the currently uninsured consuming a lot more health care, then it's certainly going to create jobs in the health care sector. You can't argue that it's going to cost a ton and then pretend it isn't going to do anything. You can't have it both ways.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Adder

I do not think Larry Summers counts as a Johnie come lately here.

As for the rest of your response, who else is going to build and maintain bridges, airports and schools? You are making a general argument against specific types of spending. Who is going to make those required infrastructure investments more efficiently? And who can finance them at the same low cost?

As for your trillion, nearly half of it was tax cuts. Another big chunk block grants to states. I don't know where your $250K comes from, but is it adjusted for that?

As for whether health care reform creates jobs, I'm not sure how you get to that conclusion. If it's a big handout that's going to result in the currently uninsured consuming a lot more health care, then it's certainly going to create jobs in the health care sector. You can't argue that it's going to cost a ton and then pretend it isn't going to do anything. You can't have it both ways.

The cost per job stats are highly questionable, and most likely do not include jobs that would have been lost but for, for example, federal contributions to state law enforcement budgets.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

The response is as follows: Government is extremely bad at spending money in an efficient manner. We spent a trillion dollars in stimulus and have very little to show for it. The cost per job was something like $250K. That is a joke. On top of that, the Admin spent its first 2 years, not on jobs, but on . . . . another entitlement that will not create jobs. So for the Johnie come latelies to put this on Rs is a joke.

Many people who criticize the stimulus as ineffective at the national level were supporters of it at the local level. Take California Republican Tom McClintock, for example:

Rep. Tom McClintock (R-CA) has been a vocal critic of President Obama’s Recovery Act, which was enacted in early 2009 despite McClintock’s “no” vote. The northern California congressman even compared the program to the economic policies of the Soviet Union. “We know of many cases where massive government spending and borrowing has destroyed economies and brought down great nations – one need look no further than the old Soviet Union,” McClintock said.

However, McClintock was more than happy to celebrate a new stimulus-funded drug rehabilitation clinic in Grass Valley recently. Appearing with local officials, McClintock praised the construction of the Community Recovery Resources’ new Center for Hope, which is financed with a 40-year low interest $9,317,000 loan enabled by the stimulus program. “This is your victory,” McClintock told the crowd, shortly after appearing with a ceremonial shovel. View a picture, taken by reporter John Hart, at the event:


Rep. McClintock (R-CA) breaking ground at a stimulus project. McClintock is third from the right, wearing a suit and tie.

As reporter Brian Hamilton noted, the project is expected to bring 400 construction jobs to the area.

This isn’t the first time McClintock has been caught as a stimulus hypocrite. Last year, California Watch reported that McClintock was among the many anti-stimulus members of Congress to quietly lobby the Obama administration for more funds. McClintock wrote at least five letters asking for money for transportation grants.

Frankly, the $250K/job figure seems incredible to me, and I find it hard to believe that it results from a fair effort to count jobs or to make sure to compare apples and oranges. This project created 400 jobs with a $9.3 million loan. If you assume that someone, somehow, spent another $700K to make that loan happen, and that the loan never, ever gets repaid, that's $10 m for 400 jobs: $25K/job -- according, presumably, to McClintock's office. For construction jobs, that sounds much more plausible.

So I agree with you that the government ought not to be spending $250K/job to create jobs, but I also think there are obviously an awful lot of ways for the government to create jobs for much less -- for example, giving money to local governments to hire back people who've lost their jobs. Or painting roofs white. Or repairing roads and bridges.

But none of what you said is an answer to my question, which was, what is the alternative theory of what's wrong with the economy and how to fix it? The idea that government deficits are a drag on the economy seems loopy to me. In this economy, the opposite seems true, since the government is hardly crowding out private sector spending.

[Cletus Miller]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Frankly, the $250K/job figure seems incredible to me,

What's incredible? You take the total amount spent and divide it by the total jobs created or saved. Wahlah, $250k per job!

And it's been a meme since the SOTU in 2009, without any revision that I've seen.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

The cost per job was something like $250K. That is a joke.

Let's go back to this for a minute. Suppose the cost per job was something like $250K. Where does that money go? Do you think the government is hiring new bureaucrats to administer stimulus grants, and that you have three bureaucrats making $75K each for each construction worker making $25K? That doesn't work, since that's four jobs for the $250K, not one. But if it did, wouldn't that be stimulating the economy? Those people can now pay for food, and housing, and entertainment, so the money gets spent, and that's what the economy needs. How do you make sense of this $250K/job business?

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Let's go back to this for a minute. Suppose the cost per job was something like $250K. Where does that money go? Do you think the government is hiring new bureaucrats to administer stimulus grants, and that you have three bureaucrats making $75K each for each construction worker making $25K? That doesn't work, since that's four jobs for the $250K, not one. But if it did, wouldn't that be stimulating the economy? Those people can now pay for food, and housing, and entertainment, so the money gets spent, and that's what the economy needs. How do you make sense of this $250K/job business?

Anyhow, isn't $250K middle class?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Let's go back to this for a minute. Suppose the cost per job was something like $250K. Where does that money go? Do you think the government is hiring new bureaucrats to administer stimulus grants, and that you have three bureaucrats making $75K each for each construction worker making $25K? That doesn't work, since that's four jobs for the $250K, not one. But if it did, wouldn't that be stimulating the economy? Those people can now pay for food, and housing, and entertainment, so the money gets spent, and that's what the economy needs. How do you make sense of this $250K/job business?

Depends what the money is used for. In this stimulus, a lot went to tax breaks that went in turn to savings accounts, or to paying off debts. Not much job creation there. In some gov't spending -- not the Obama stimulus, to any great extent that I'm aware -- money goes off-shore. For example, how much has been spent on the SF Bay Bridge, and how much of that has gone to creating jobs in China?

There is also the issue of "creating" versus "saving" jobs. I already commented on this, and I believe that you have done so before. Those who want to puff the "$/jobs" figure look only to new jobs created, not old ones that would have been lost.

I've registered my skepticism of the $250k/job figure, so the above is not meant to support that.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

Anyhow, isn't $250K middle class?

If that were true, then a lot more jobs should have been created to produce the crappy domestic booze that Sebby buys.

[Cletus Miller]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

Depends what the money is used for. In this stimulus, a lot went to tax breaks that went in turn to savings accounts, or to paying off debts. Not much job creation there. In some gov't spending -- not the Obama stimulus, to any great extent that I'm aware -- money goes off-shore. For example, how much has been spent on the SF Bay Bridge, and how much of that has gone to creating jobs in China?

There is also the issue of "creating" versus "saving" jobs. I already commented on this, and I believe that you have done so before. Those who want to puff the "$/jobs" figure look only to new jobs created, not old ones that would have been lost.

I've registered my skepticism of the $250k/job figure, so the above is not meant to support that.

But Obama himself talked about a $1T stimulus and creating or saving 4mm jobs, and asking anyone to do more than divide those two numbers is asking too much of a nation of the functionally innumerate.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

Depends what the money is used for. In this stimulus, a lot went to tax breaks that went in turn to savings accounts, or to paying off debts. Not much job creation there. In some gov't spending -- not the Obama stimulus, to any great extent that I'm aware -- money goes off-shore. For example, how much has been spent on the SF Bay Bridge, and how much of that has gone to creating jobs in China?

There is also the issue of "creating" versus "saving" jobs. I already commented on this, and I believe that you have done so before. Those who want to puff the "$/jobs" figure look only to new jobs created, not old ones that would have been lost.

I've registered my skepticism of the $250k/job figure, so the above is not meant to support that.

I agree that the tax cuts were not necessarily effective stimulus. They were there to get Republican votes, which in hindsight looks foolish.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

Anyhow, isn't $250K middle class?

No, in this context it's a ridiculously large amount of money. Try to keep up.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Cletus Miller

But Obama himself talked about a $1T stimulus and creating or saving 4mm jobs, and asking anyone to do more than divide those two numbers is asking too much of a nation of the functionally innumerate.

Huh. So he said what he planned to do, Congress voted for his plan, and it accomplished what he said it would?

No wonder people are pissed off.

[Cletus Miller]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

Huh. So he said what he planned to do, Congress voted for his plan, and it accomplished what he said it would?

No wonder people are pissed off.

I'm still confused about how we can afford Medicare Part D and stable military budgets (did you see that the military band budget is even sacrosanct?) through this dire "spending crisis". Why haven't the Rs congressional leaders said "oops" even once about *their* profligacy?

And, if the "spending crisis" is so awful, how is a ten year budget with a $400B deficit in year 10 some how deemed a serious proposal?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

Depends what the money is used for. In this stimulus, a lot went to tax breaks that went in turn to savings accounts, or to paying off debts. Not much job creation there. In some gov't spending -- not the Obama stimulus, to any great extent that I'm aware -- money goes off-shore. For example, how much has been spent on the SF Bay Bridge, and how much of that has gone to creating jobs in China?

There is also the issue of "creating" versus "saving" jobs. I already commented on this, and I believe that you have done so before. Those who want to puff the "$/jobs" figure look only to new jobs created, not old ones that would have been lost.

I've registered my skepticism of the $250k/job figure, so the above is not meant to support that.

plus when you put $x Million into fixing roads you have to buy some cement too.