Still high but when you factor in payments for goods beyond just direct employment compensation it seems reasonable to me.
-------------------- No longer eligible for government service due to lack of tax issues. Posts: 5178 | From: Up North | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
IMO this will have more impact on our overall finacial health than the stimulus package:
February 16, 2010, 6:39 pm A Comeback for Nuclear Power? By THE EDITORS
The Obama administration has approved a $8 billion loan guarantee to support the construction of two nuclear reactors in Georgia. If the project goes forward, the plants would be the first built in the United States since the 1970s.
The 2005 Energy Policy Act authorized $18.5 billion in loan guarantees, but none have been issued until now. President Obama has proposed tripling that amount to expand nuclear power as a way to control greenhouse gas emissions and bolster domestic energy production.
of course it will be highly contentious between the left and the right esp. since the right categorically tends to want more nuke power and the left categorically tends to want no nuke power.
if we could come up with a place and a process to put the waste into a proper storage (cuz that's all you can do is store it) there will be another industry created.
hopefully this is the first of a dozen or more.
The Energy Department is negotiating with potential borrowers for three other projects, two of which could win guarantees soon. The Scana Corporation and Santee Cooper want to build a nuclear plant near Jenkinsville, S.C., and UniStar is planning a reactor in southern Maryland, adjacent to the Calvert Cliffs reactors. A third project, in Texas, is in some doubt because of rising cost estimates and a lawsuit filed by the municipal utility serving San Antonio against its partner in the project, NRG of Princeton, N.J.
The United States has 104 operating power reactors, but all the reactors ordered after 1973 were canceled.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The claim that the 179 billion spent has saved 2 million jobs is farsical at best....with 10%+ unemployment and a net loss of about 7 million jobs, I don't see how they can claim 2 million jobs to their credit. (shrug)
Posts: 1802 | From: Utah | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you don't trust the math Seek dig into the details and confirm for yourself. I would like to see your findings also. More details is always better than less even if it is a headache sometimes.
Your shrug as it stands now is just personal speculation without rational grounding or factual backing.
-------------------- No longer eligible for government service due to lack of tax issues. Posts: 5178 | From: Up North | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
Unemployment IS at 10%+. Even as high as 15-20% if you count those 'no longer looking' into the numbers. That $89,500 per job "saved or created" is bologna. How much of that average went to actual salary payment? How many of those jobs were two week long temp positions versus long term employment? You can't keep people employed on taxpayers dime forever. At some point if the private (wealth producing) market doesn't start employing folks, no amount of government stimulus is going to help.
My shrug isn't a replacement for facts, Big, it's an acknowledgement that there is nothing I can do to refute them above and beyond what has already be admitted by the administration.
Posts: 1802 | From: Utah | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
Oct. 28 (Bloomberg) -- Heresy, thy name is Christina Romer.
Last week, the chairman of President Barack Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers -- a position that carried the title “chief economist” until Larry Summers took up residence in the White House -- testified to the Joint Economic Committee on the economic crisis and the efficacy of the policy response.
Here’s the executive summary in case you missed it:
The crisis: “Inherited.”
The economy: “In terrible shape” (the inherited one).
The shocks to the system: “Larger than those that precipitated the Great Depression.”
The policy response: “Strong and timely.”
The efficacy of the policy response: a 2 to 3 percentage point addition to second-quarter growth; 3 to 4 percentage points in the third; and 160,000 to 1.5 million “jobs saved or created,” a made-up metric if there ever was one. (More on that later.)
What was most puzzling about Romer’s Oct. 22 testimony was her comment on the waning effect of fiscal stimulus.
“Most analysts predict that the fiscal stimulus will have its greatest impact on growth in the second and third quarters of 2009,” Romer said. “By mid-2010, fiscal stimulus will likely be contributing little to growth.”
At first it was just fringe elements, such as conservative blogs and the not-really-a-news-organization Fox News, that pounced on Romer’s statement. Then other news outlets started to question her statement, which seemed to fly in the face of White House assertions that only a small portion of the stimulus -- $120 billion, or 15 percent -- has actually been spent. Most of the criticism of the stimulus coming from the president’s own party has been, “too little, too late,” and here’s Romer saying it’s kaput.
At least funny bones are being stimulated by the Obama Administration's $787 billion economic stimulus bill.
To wit, how many Americans does it take to make nine pairs of work boots? According to the White House's recovery.gov site, an $890 shoe order for the Army Corps of Engineers, courtesy of the stimulus package, created nine new jobs at Moore's Shoes & Services in Campbellsville, Kentucky.
The job-for-a-boot plan may not be American productivity at its best. But such stories go a ways toward explaining how the Administration has come up with 640,329 jobs "created/saved" by the American Recovery Act as of October 30.
Jonathan Karl of ABC News deserves credit among Beltway reporters for committing journalism and actually fact-checking White House claims. Head Start in Augusta, Georgia claimed 317 jobs were created by a $790,000 grant. In reality, as Mr. Karl reported this week, the money went toward a one-off pay hike for 317 employees.
Other media outlets and government watchdog groups have also found numerous errors in the stimulus filings. Jobs have been overstated or counted multiple times. One Alabama housing authority claimed that a $540,071 grant would create 7,280 jobs. The Birmingham News reports that only 14 were created. In some cases, Recovery Act funds went to nonexistent Congressional districts, such as the 26th in Louisiana or the 12th in Virginia. Up to $6.4 billion went to imaginary places in America, according to the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity.
Asked by the New Orleans Times-Picayune why so many recipients would misstate their districts, Ed Pound, the director of communications for the Obama Administration's recovery.gov, said, "Who knows, man, who really knows."
The nonexistence of the jobs and places allegedly stimulated by the Recovery Act doesn't necessarily mean the money was misspent or stolen. But it does indicate that the claims made on its behalf are a political illusion. The true jobs measure of an economic recovery is the unemployment rate, which rose to 10.2% last month. No matter how hard or imaginatively the Administration spins, the reality is that the stimulus has been the economic bust that critics predicted it would be.
Unemployment IS at 10%+. Even as high as 15-20% if you count those 'no longer looking' into the numbers. That $89,500 per job "saved or created" is bologna. How much of that average went to actual salary payment? How many of those jobs were two week long temp positions versus long term employment? You can't keep people employed on taxpayers dime forever. At some point if the private (wealth producing) market doesn't start employing folks, no amount of government stimulus is going to help.
My shrug isn't a replacement for facts, Big, it's an acknowledgement that there is nothing I can do to refute them above and beyond what has already be admitted by the administration.
At some point if the private (wealth producing) market doesn't start employing folks, no amount of government stimulus is going to help.
at some point?
how about always?
isn't that the core beleif of conservatism?
all the govt "help" in the world won't fix this mess.
the truths here are pretty simple.
"Those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholder's equity — myself especially — are in a state of shocked disbelief." Referring to his free-market ideology, Greenspan said: “I have found a flaw. I don’t know how significant or permanent it is. But I have been very distressed by that fact.” Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) then pressed him to clarify his words. “In other words, you found that your view of the world, your ideology, was not right, it was not working,” Waxman said. “Absolutely, precisely,” Greenspan replied. “You know, that’s precisely the reason I was shocked, because I have been going for 40 years or more with very considerable evidence that it was working exceptionally well.” Greenspan admitted fault in opposing regulation of derivatives and acknowledged that financial institutions didn't protect shareholders and investments as well as he expected.
the real flaw that Mr Greenspan seemed to me to gloss over is that there is no real accountability in the financial industries markets.
what's the point in making money for the company if you still get paid when you lose it?
it's easy enough to complain about 10% unemployment, but make sure you pin the blame where it belongs.
Greenspan describes himself as a "lifelong libertarian Republican"
the "Great Recession" as this period of time will probably become known happened during a time of incredible amounts of de-regulation and tax cutting. There is no escaping that simple truth.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:At some point if the private (wealth producing) market doesn't start employing folks, no amount of government stimulus is going to help.
at some point?
how about always?
isn't that the core beleif of conservatism?
all the govt "help" in the world won't fix this mess.
Preach it, Brother...
I'm not denying the underpinning reasons for where we are sitting, Glass. All I'm saying is that to actually expect us to swallow a statement like '2 million jobs saved or created' is insane. The Government CANNOT create wealth, they can only provide an environment that is condusive to wealth creation.
Posts: 1802 | From: Utah | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
and if they had done nothing? then we'd be complaining that they did nothing.
here's another simple truth -we are failing as a "productive" nation. plain and simple:
that "account" is the trade deficits.
the trade deficits are much more of a problem than the Govt spending deficits. Fix the trade deficits and the Govt spending deficits should fix themselves.
the Govt has been owned by lobbyists investing in foreign nations. That's GOP's and Dems both participating.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
And that percentage is projected to increase faster than GDP forever?
Trade Deficit needs to change...and quick. But so does what we as a people expect from Uncle Sam's wallet.
Posts: 1802 | From: Utah | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
And that percentage is projected to increase faster than GDP forever?
Trade Deficit needs to change...and quick. But so does what we as a people expect from Uncle Sam's wallet.
you are just repeating what you hear offa Glen Beck and Limbaugh.
consider that( following the same logic provided by them) we could not "afford" to wage WW2 and pay off the debt it incurred.
yet, somehow we did, and we came out of the "Great Depression".
again, this is simple fact that seems to directly contradict the "populist" libertarian movements mantras today....
the other day? i happened to catch Glenn Beck talking about how screwed up California is and that they are losing their filming business to other countries because they had better tax plans...
New Zealand was an example they offered, but they failed to mention that New Zealand has this health care plan provided by (guess who) the GOVT.
How do I pay for my healthcare in New Zealand? New Zealand's healthcare system is funded mainly through general taxation. Treatments are usually free or subsidised. Medical treatment is generally very good. Private healthcare is also available.
New Zealand went through a major programme of tax reform in the 1980s. The top marginal rate of income tax was reduced from 66% to 33% (since increased to 39% in April 2000 and reduced to 38% in April 2009) and corporate income tax rate from 48% to 33% (reduced to 30% in 2008). Goods and services tax was introduced, initially at a rate of 10% (now 12.5%). An OECD report in 2001 described the New Zealand tax system as one of the most neutral and efficient within its membership. New Zealand residents are liable for tax on their worldwide taxable income. In 2005-06, 43% of the New Zealand Government's core revenue ($22.9bn) came from individuals' income taxes
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:you are just repeating what you hear offa Glen Beck and Limbaugh.
I'll try to find which thread I posted it to, but I linked to a report by the CBO that supported my position on this, Glass. Beck, who I do like to listen to, as well as Limbaugh and Hannity and whoever else (which I don't), are simply stating the obvious on this one.
We CANNOT keep expecting the government to take care of us.
Why?
Because the Govt can't take care of us. They don't produce anything. They don't generate anything. All they do is take from producers and redistribute it. That's the nature of Govt. Sooner or later, those that are actually generating the wealth of this nation will collapse under the burden of paying for those that don't. It's that simple. You don't need a Beck or Limbaugh to make the point true. It's an eventual certainty.
As for the New Zealand part, do you remember my link to the Australian Point system for immigrants? Guess what...Yep! New Zealand has it too! So, if you remove the undesirable, non producing portion from ANY country, you can lower tax rates because EVERYONE IS CONTRIBUTING!!!
That's why it works there and can't work here, Glass. Not because of some special tax policy. It's because of population quality control.
Posts: 1802 | From: Utah | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
i've pointed out here many times before that most of the "progressive" policies that we have are great benefits to and greatly desired by big business.
i would like it if you could better identify the entitlements and how they are taxed.
because my understanding is that they are not as much of drain on the wealthy that are taxed as some claim.
keep in mind that social security is not collected on income over 106,000 this year.
so what actually happens is that we have a progressive income tax rate that "compensates" for that.
in reality? this is a screwed up tax system, but it allows for people like Hannity and Limbagh and Beck to distort the truth when they present their "facts".
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by glassman: It's because of population quality control.
careful there dude, that is a very slippery slope...
I'm not advocating for this kind of social engineering, Glass. This is exactly the concept that leads to Eugenics and other similarly heinous paths.
But you cannot deny that this is a reason why such tax policies are effective there. If you maintain a 'minimum bar' for the population that reduces the number of those that are 'drains on the system', you don't have to extract high amounts from the producers because most everyone is relatively self sufficient.
Posts: 1802 | From: Utah | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
thing is? living in one of the poorest states of the union? i see alot of the reasons we have so much dependence on the Federal Govt for "assistance" and it ain't pretty.
the "red states" tend to recive more federal dollars than they pay and the "blue states" tend to pay more in federal taxes than they receive in federal dollars.
living in this poor state? i cannot tell you how many people with college educations i hear talking about how they are getting grant money.
and no it's not all artists, who i will be the first to say are notorious for living grant money...
last year the crops were destroyed by too much rain late in the season..
Mississippi Requests Disaster Aid Damage due to wet conditions. Compiled by staff Published: Nov 3, 2009
Mississippi farmers are experiencing devastating crop losses due to the record rainfalls during September and October causing crop yields and quality to be severely affected. Current crop conditions show very poor quality and yield for farms which, in some cases, leave farmers only very low discounted prices or total crop loss.
Dr. Lester Spell, Mississippi Commissioner of Agriculture and Commerce, stated "I have requested members of Mississippi's Congressional Delegation and the United States Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Secretary of Agriculture to support legislative measures beyond normal USDA disaster programs to assist Mississippi farmers who have lost all or have lost large portions of their crops severely damaged due to the devastating weather conditions this year."
Updated crop reports from across the state show producers of a number of crops are feeling the devastating effects. This includes sweet potatoes, cotton, grain sorghum, peanuts, soybeans, rice, and corn.
Mississippi State University Agricultural Economists, Dr. John Anderson and Dr. John Michael Riley, have utilized recent crop reports and have estimated current crop losses in Mississippi reaching approximately $485 million. Nearly 64% of the sweet potato crop valuing more than $39 million is expected to be lost. According to USDA reports, as of November 1, only 38% of the crop had been harvested compared to 95% at the same time last year. Soybean producers are expected to lose $307 million, which is a 44% loss. Nearly half of Mississippi's cotton crop is expected to be lost. Historically, cotton producers have harvested 90% of their crops by November 1 based on a five-year average. As of November 1, only 14% had been harvested.
"Existing USDA assistance for many of these crops will not be available for up to a year or more. By that time, I fear many of our hardworking Mississippi farmers will no longer be able to operate due to the excessive losses faced this year which will, in turn, affect their access to financing for the future," said Spell.
For the latest information on Mississippi crop damage, visit http://msucares.com/. Please see attached chart detailing the 2009 Mississippi Crop Production and Value Losses.
posted
Glass, the entitlements are an increasing burden to the government. Noone disputes this fact. Outlays are increasing and will continue to increase (due to extended lifespans). They have two choices: increase income to compensate, or reduce outlays.
That's it.
There is no middle ground on this issue. Either you take in more money (through higher and higher taxes) or you stop (or reduce) payments. If you take path number one, you are in a losing race. Sooner or later the necessary funds simply cannot be extracted from the production base without killing it. If you take the second path, you force the population to find an alternative to the government dole. Self preservation will make people plan ahead and save because the alternative is starvation.
From my post under the Bachmann’s Plan: To Deal With Debt, We Must ‘Wean Everybody’ Off Social Security, Med Thread
Last year, outlays for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid combined accounted for about 9 percent of GDP. Outstripping the growth of GDP, spending for those programs is expected to rise rapidly over the next 10 years, totaling nearly 12 percent of GDP by 2019. Under longterm projections recently published by CBO, such spending would continue to rise under current laws and policies and could total 17 percent of GDP by 2035.
If outlays for those programs reached that level, federal spending would be well above its historical percentage of GDP. Unless revenues were increased correspondingly, annual deficits would climb and federal debt would grow significantly, posing a threat to the economy. Alternatively, if taxes were raised to finance the rising spending, tax rates would have to reach levels never seen in the United States. Some combination of significant changes in benefit programs and other spending and tax policies will be necessary in order to attain long-term fiscal balance.
That's the CBO, Glass, not a TV\Radio Commentator. They are warning us that this path isn't sustainable. Raising taxes in perpetuity isn't either. So, what's left?
Posts: 1802 | From: Utah | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
i beleive i pointed out to you then that this is not news, that i have expected this for 20 years.
i beleive Bush's answer to the problem was to "privatize" social security, LOL... not even Wall St wanted that because then they would come under more scrutiny.
he also gave the pharmaceutical companies a huge bonus of our tax dollars..
Bush signs landmark Medicare bill into law President Bush: 'Giving older Americans better choices'
Monday, December 8, 2003 Posted: 1:23 PM EST (1823 GMT) It is the largest expansion of Medicare since the program was created in 1965, though most of its provisions won't take effect for several years.
i don't disagree that something needs to be done,
but i pointed out the cutoff to SS taxes for a good reason...
SS is not losing money at this time, the problem is that they are spending the money on other stuff...
"entitlements" get votes. goodluck taking them away, esp. when people have been paying for them for their whole lives
in case you weren't paying attention? the main reason health care reform got shot down was because people were told they would lose medicare funding- think about it...
retired people screaming at townhall meetings that the govt better not give their benefits to somebody else... too ironic, even for my taste.
i'm pretty sure the CBO said health care reform would decrease the deficits in th elong run too..
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:i don't disagree that something needs to be done,
but i pointed out the cutoff to SS taxes for a good reason...
SS is not losing money at this time, the problem is that they are spending the money on other stuff...
"entitlements" get votes. goodluck taking them away, esp. when people have been paying for them for their whole lives
Politicians are going to have to make hard decisions one way or another. Either you be straight with the American people and let them determine their eventual fate or you keep lying to them and hope you're dead and gone before the wheels fall off this ride.
Either way...stimulus spending isn't the answer.
Posts: 1802 | From: Utah | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Either way...stimulus spending isn't the answer.
once again, i have to respond that you are simply repeating a "populist" answer.
we live in a Democratic Republic. that means populism matters, but the fact is economic experts do not agree with the idea that stimulus psending is not the answer.
for instance, even tho the actual number of jobs DIRECTLY created by the stimulus is debatable? the experts (people who have been trained in economics) all agree that something like 1.6 to 2 million jobs were directly created. Then you have to llok at where those people spent their money, like on pizza at Dominos or PapaJohns. thet created jobs too.
furthermore? putting that money into the economy is what counts. where do yo think it actually went if no jobs were created?
It takes quite a bit of plausible deniability to claim it hasn't created jobs.
last night i watched a FOX news panel repeat five or six times that 800 billion had been spent and nothing happened... We know that's just no true, but if they keep repeating it? People accept is as true, but only for awhile.... i'm trying to remember why we invaded Iraq
that's like saying we took 800 billion 1 dollar bills and lit them on fire.
Tax cuts to stimulate the economy? Isn't that what Bush did? they sent us all cash to go blow didn't they? What did we end up with? More big screen TV's in homes which in turn made China just a little better off? we still ended up with this mess...
look at where the money is going
The Great depression was ignored until it became a Depression as opposed to a recession.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
here's a perfect example of the populist rhetoric:
The Preposterous Stimulus Bill
By Andrew Cline on 2.18.10 @ 6:08AM
Only 6 percent of Americans believe the stimulus bill passed a year ago this week has created jobs, a CBS News/New York Times poll reported last week. Six percent. Nearly six times as many Americans believe in ghosts as believe President Obama's jobs claims. It isn't hard to see why. All you have to do is go to the government's own website, www.recovery.gov, and look at the numbers. The site reports 1.2 million jobs funded by the stimulus bill by the end of 2009. Note the terminology. That's jobs funded, not created. The administration switched from jobs "created or saved" to jobs "funded" for accuracy's sake. Or maybe to stop the mockery. Either way, it's a telling methodology.
President Obama would have us believe that the stimulus is working because the government spent a bunch of money, and that money funded 1.2 million jobs. And he has the nerve to complain that dividing the number of jobs funded into the amount spent to come up with a price per job is simplistic.
If creating jobs were that easy, the government could simply tax the country into endless prosperity. But the money has to come from somewhere.
now, ask the simple question- where does money come from anyway?
the same place this did.
more from the article:
The question is not: How many jobs were funded by the stimulus bill? The question is: How many jobs would have been funded if that same money had been put to other uses? The American people seem to think, not unreasonably, that more jobs would have been created without the stimulus bill than with it.
They also seem to understand that there is a big difference between a permanent private-sector job and a temporary stimulus job. Recovery.gov reports that of the 634,000 stimulus jobs funded from Feb. 17 to Oct. 1, 2009, 601,000 were funded by grants.
to say that there is any such thing as a "permanent private-sector job" is pure fantasy.
i am old enough to know that there's absolutley no such thing and anybody who says there is, is just lying.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:to say that there is any such thing as a "permanent private-sector job" is pure fantasy.
i am old enough to know that there's absolutley no such thing and anybody who says there is, is just lying.
Now we're just arguing semantics, Glass.
While there is no such thing as a 'permanent' job, there is a HUGE difference between a long term position in the private sector and a two week temp position funded by the stimulus.
One has potential for long term sustanence for the employee. The other is simply to pad the numbers and leaves us no better than we were before it was 'created'.
I think you and I have a divergent view about where the government's money comes from. While it is true that they can 'create it out of thin air', the bulk of it comes from taxing the producers in this nation. They TAKE it from those that are creating wealth\value. Even if you want to go the 'they borrow it' route, that debt still has to be repaid by taxing the producers. Every dollar spent by the government had to be taken in some manner from the producers.
Posts: 1802 | From: Utah | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:to say that there is any such thing as a "permanent private-sector job" is pure fantasy.
i am old enough to know that there's absolutley no such thing and anybody who says there is, is just lying.
Now we're just arguing semantics, Glass.
While there is no such thing as a 'permanent' job, there is a HUGE difference between a long term position in the private sector and a two week temp position funded by the stimulus.
One has potential for long term sustanence for the employee. The other is simply to pad the numbers and leaves us no better than we were before it was 'created'.
I think you and I have a divergent view about where the government's money comes from. While it is true that they can 'create it out of thin air', the bulk of it comes from taxing the producers in this nation. They TAKE it from those that are creating wealth\value. Even if you want to go the 'they borrow it' route, that debt still has to be repaid by taxing the producers. Every dollar spent by the government had to be taken in some manner from the producers.
first off, i am not playing semantic games. i think you are being duped.
two week temp positions? LOL, where did you get that from?
go for a DRIVE on a ROAD, that's your tax dollars at work. every single house ever built, and every single other construction project ever done had a beginning and an end that was most definite.
this idea that the jobs are "permanent" or "impermanent" is a semantic trick that you are playing.
your job is not permanent if some co. in China decides to compete against your employer.
as for where the money comes from? i pointed out plainly that if we as a Nation return to a positive trade balance? the rest will take care of itself. the real problem with our budgets and everything else is simply the fact that we as a nation consume much more than we produce. The govt too. I don't like budget deficits, but if the stimulus package had not been done? the riots would be about 15% unemployment and headed higher.
private industry could not borrow, so the govt had to.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
OYE I suggest details regarding jobs created by stimulus money to see if your assertions have any grounding in reality and you give me two old articles on report errors and the jobless rate. Then say you can't refute them but don't believe them.
LA-ZY
The errors in the initial report were stupid, I agree. It is to be expected that there will be some errors in an assessment of so large a project but it was fairly evident that very little was edited prior to publication. We need to have good information so the criticism is warranted but those articles said absolutely nothing to invalidate the 2 Million job claim that Biden made.
The jobless rate is alarming. However it also does not invalidate the jobs claim. Unless you can figure out where the jobless rate would have been at without the stimulus package? Or perhaps we could instead investigate if the jobless rate has shifted outside its nominal range to permanently include a larger portion of the jobless population due to the president extending jobless benefits timelines by 14-20 weeks. (Remember...once the jobless are no longer receiving benefits they fall out of the weekly claims report that is a part of what makes up the unemployment statistic.)
-------------------- No longer eligible for government service due to lack of tax issues. Posts: 5178 | From: Up North | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'll admit it. I don't get the social security problem.
I understand that they are projecting they will run out of money in 2040 or whatever. The thing I don't get is how?
Sure...I understand that congress takes the excess cash in exchange for treasury certs, but they have always delivered and I doubt they will renege on the 2.5 Trill that is currently outstanding.
I also understand that with the Boomers in retirement years we are spending more than is coming in. But once enough of the Boomers die won't the population tree be back in shape and we will start seeing growth again?
Disability is a small portion of social security as a whole so a can't see that being the leak that sinks the ship....so...what am I missing that makes social security bankrupt?
-------------------- No longer eligible for government service due to lack of tax issues. Posts: 5178 | From: Up North | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry, Big, I went back to my posts and realized that a couple of lines didn't make it from conception to keyboard...
The reason I posted those articles was to point out an important fact...That even by the standards that the administration itself uses to determine jobs 'saved or created' the numbers don't add up. Take this link from Recovery.Gov...
If you add up the jobs listed as Recovery Funded Jobs from the two reporting periods consisting of Feb17 to the end of the year, you still don't come up with 2 million. And if you look at the current definition of job, it allows for alot of wiggle room to play with the numbers.
recipients estimated the number of jobs for a period longer than a quarter --February through September 2009.
Prior to the second reporting period that began January 1, 2010, the Office of Management and Budget simplified the definition of a Recovery job and the formula for estimating jobs. Recipients now calculate jobs based on the employee hours paid for with Recovery funds during a single quarter.
If you continue to change the definition, you can claim that anyone that recieved a tax rebate is a 'saved or created job'. Do you see my problem with taking their numbers seriously?
As for digging to see if their numbers are correct...YOU CAN'T. Noone can. That's the beauty of the lie. Noone can prove them wrong.
Posts: 1802 | From: Utah | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's the beauty of the lie. Noone can prove them wrong.
this is what's wrong in America today.
you feel comfortable calling it a lie, but you cannot prove it wrong.
has it ever occurred to you that the people who demanded the numbers to begin with already KNEW that?
fact, economics is not science.
economics, like law and medicine is the practice of an art.
fact is that the Feds sent the large part of the moeny to local State Governors to spend and they used it to bolster failing state treasuries.
more from the critical article i posted:
The bulk of the stimulus money was given to governors to spend on shoring up their state budgets. That money went primarily to employ government workers. A small fraction went to vendors.
The fraction of stimulus funds that were contracts, not grants, and went to "shovel-ready" projects went, of course, to short-term construction projects. When those projects are done, those jobs will cease to exist. The same can be said for many of the government jobs funded this past year. Many school districts, for instance, have already burned through their stimulus money. A lot of teachers will get pink slips this spring.
it's truly incredible how bad the economy really is/was.
to date? none of the Governors from either party has turned down the moeny...
some truned down the portion for unemployment:
"If we were to take the unemployment reform package that they have, it would cause us to raise taxes on employment when the money runs out -- and the money will run out in a couple of years," Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour told CNN's "State of the Union" on Sunday.
as it is? our state has had to cut every single program deeply....
"That would have actually raised taxes on Louisiana businesses. We as a state would have been responsible for paying for those benefits after the federal money disappeared."
The law demands a "permanent" change to state law, Jindal said.
that's the important part, that is how the Feds have been able to do so much that is not specifically mentioned int he Constittuion and how they get around the 10th ammendment
10th- The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
they pay maoney to those states that will follow their rules and reduce moeny to those that won't.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: you feel comfortable calling it a lie, but you cannot prove it wrong.
What terminology would you prefer, Glass? 'Knowingly Unsubstantiatable Claim'? 'Willful Exageration'? 'Redifinition of Data to Maximize Outcome'?
They can claim all the job creation\saving they want as long as they know noone can offer hard proof to the contrary. They can't offer any proof of 2 million jobs created\saved, but noone can refute them, right?
As I listed in my link for Big, even if you take the total Recovery Funded Jobs they list, you still end up about 800,000 jobs short of their claim. That a pretty hefty margin of error.
quote:fact, economics is not science
Counting is though. If they receive a list of jobs created or saved from the people who got money (states, etc). Then you just add one plus one and repeat until you run out of lists. Yes? Why then, if they claim 2 million jobs, does NOONE agree with\back up that claim with a list of where those jobs are?
The ONLY available information is on Recovery.Gov which as I tried to show to Big, doesn't even list 2 million jobs. And that's their own site...which lists jobs created in Congressional Districts that don't exist...but I'm sure that was just an honest mistake and not an attempt to pad the numbers...really...
Posts: 1802 | From: Utah | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
They can claim all the job creation\saving they want as long as they know noone can offer hard proof to the contrary. They can't offer any proof of 2 million jobs created\saved, but noone can refute them, right?
i took your words, you said they were not provable.
once again, i have to repeat that arguing about whether 1.2 or "almost" 2 million jobs were created is why this country is going down the tubes.
the package was planned to create that many jobs.
every political pundit has been pushing forward with the 800 billion dollar number even tho its only 30% spent. It was desigend to be a several year plan from the beginning.
the CBO is where the job estimates come from, they are presented as estimates and a list of jobs created will never be made. even tho that would create a couple dozen jobs all by itself, it would be a waste of money.
as for noone agreeing? that's just not true. a 6% poll shows how unhappy people are, but it doesn't prove any facts.
the link you posted was short on jobs because it was only for the Reporting Period of: October 1 - December 31, 2009- it even says qtr=2009Q4 at the end of the URL
see if maybe there's not alot of liberal and conservative media mistating what it actually says in there.
The Structure of the Recovery Act Notwithstanding this progress, the nature of the Recovery Act remains misunderstood by many, and misconstrued by others: critics have suggested that the entire $787 billion is being spent on earmarked programs. Instead, the Recovery Act is divided into three roughly equal parts: tax relief, direct aid to states and individuals (or “payments”), and projects that not only help rebuild today’s infrastructure, but also invest in the industries of tomorrow
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:the link you posted was short on jobs because it was only for the Reporting Period of: October 1 - December 31, 2009- it even says qtr=2009Q4 at the end of the URL
Sorry, I thought it was a given that anyone who cared to look at the link would see the big 'Choose a reporting period' option in the middle of the page to see the Feb-Sep data. (shrug)
Posts: 1802 | From: Utah | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:the link you posted was short on jobs because it was only for the Reporting Period of: October 1 - December 31, 2009- it even says qtr=2009Q4 at the end of the URL
Sorry, I thought it was a given that anyone who cared to look at the link would see the big 'Choose a reporting period' option in the middle of the page to see the Feb-Sep data. (shrug)
or maybe notice that it also says:
Job calculations are based on the number of hours worked in a quarter and funded under the Recovery Act.
which is a reasonable economic metric for job calculation?
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
