On CNN this morning. said that for the jobs created by the stimulus package as claimed by the WH.....was $248,000 and some change per job created.

 

Sounds like a good deal.

 

Enquirer reported a week or two ago that UC was the biggest recipient for stimulus money in Ohio. $50 million for research. Created 11 jobs.

 

I wonder whether it would have been more effective to just give every family or person who pays taxes $10,000 to spend or pay off bills and seen how that would have bolstered the economy.

^ I agree 100%!

LBBC - you're a teacher, right? I'd challenge you to put on your thinking cap and really think about what you're claiming (or believing) vs what it really means.

LBBC - you're a teacher, right? I'd challenge you to put on your thinking cap and really think about what you're claiming (or believing) vs what it really means.

 

No clue what you are talking about. Please enlighten.

 

The CNN anchor and reporter both kept hammering the point that government is not a good way to create jobs because of all the red tape and government regulations that government agencies and contracts have to go through which drives up the cost. The goal of government is NOT to be cost efficient.

 

The CNN anchor and reporter both kept pointing out that private business is the place that job creation is BEST DONE!!!

No clue what you are talking about. Please enlighten.

 

The CNN anchor and reporter both kept hammering the point that government is not a good way to create jobs because of all the red tape and government regulations that government agencies and contracts have to go through which drives up the cost. The goal of government is NOT to be cost efficient.

 

The CNN anchor and reporter both kept pointing out that private business is the place that job creation is BEST DONE!!!

 

So one of your students says "Hey, Mr. LBBC. My dad said that govt should have just given us money instead of spending $240k per job saved/created. My dad's usually not very smart so I'm looking to you to help me explain to him why that really is a misrepresentation. Help me out."

 

How are you going to give him the real story to give his dad?

Let me give you an example.

 

I am starting a business. Its construction. I go to the bank and ask for a $1M loan. The banker says how many employees and I say 10. 10? That's $100k per employee. The banker says "you don't need to pay them $100k do you?"

 

You say what?

Let me give you an example.

 

I am starting a business. Its construction. I go to the bank and ask for a $1M loan. The banker says how many employees and I say 10. 10? That's $100k per employee. The banker says "you don't need to pay them $100k do you?"

 

You say what?

 

Hopefully, the banker says what the voters should have said to Obama in November, no thank you.

Hopefully, the banker says what the voters should have said to Obama in November, no thank you.

 

SO if you're going to post something and then say sarcastically "sounds like a good deal" shouldn't you understand it?

 

Shouldn't you understand that a)the total $$ required are not just for payroll b)that the stimulus plan $$ were not all allocated for jobs c)that some jobs are not created until the initial jobs are and the results of those jobs then require more people to be hired ?

 

Isn't that logical?

SO if you're going to post something and then say sarcastically "sounds like a good deal" shouldn't you understand it?

 

Shouldn't you understand that a)the total $$ required are not just for payroll b)that the stimulus plan $$ were not all allocated for jobs c)that some jobs are not created until the initial jobs are and the results of those jobs then require more people to be hired ?

 

Isn't that logical?

 

Just as it is logical that the jobs that the WH is crowing about are temporary jobs that in most cases are for one year.

 

They crow about the teaching jobs and several in our district have a job because of this money.

 

And at the end of this school year, they will be unemployed and without a job.

 

So, at best, it delayed issues and did nothing to solve issues.

 

Now, take that same money and let businesses use it to create LONG-TERM jobs and you have another whole ball game.

 

You are for government jobs that either SHORT-TERM or a continual drain on the budget.

 

I am for businesses creating jobs that in turn into jobs for the long-term.

 

You think Obama's jobs that were created are going to last and provide a long-term solution like the jobs from Toyota?

 

The arguments that continue to be thrown out about the great Stimulus package reminds me of the designer of the Titanic who swears up and down even as the ship is sinking, that it is unsinkable.

SO if you're going to post something and then say sarcastically "sounds like a good deal" shouldn't you understand it?

 

?

 

Just following the lead of the Congress, who vote and pass Stimulus bills and Health care reform without reading or understanding it.:thumb:

 

In the other thread, you defended Congressman for not reading and understanding the bills they vote on and that is what they are elected and paid to do.

 

Again, I'll ask you.

 

Do you think the average congressman/woman has the ability to fully comprehend 2000 pages worth of legal-ese and healthcare implications? If I have you 6 months could you tell me exactly what the bill states and its implications?

Just following the lead of the Congress, who vote and pass Stimulus bills and Health care reform without reading or understanding it.:thumb:

 

In the other thread, you defended Congressman for not reading and understanding the bills they vote on and that is what they are elected and paid to do.

 

Classic ploy.

 

I said a 2,000 page bill is too much for one congress person to read and understand.

 

However, don't try to change the subject. If you're going to criticize and cast ridicule then it would behoove you to actually take a minute and understand what it says. Remember, when Mitch McConnell uses simpleton math its not to be accurate. Its to deceive the uneducated and the ones who won't actually use their brain to question such an obvious distortion of the truth.

 

I'm also glad you're not a banker who would deny the guy $1M to start a construction business that will "only" employ 10 people to start. You couldn't see that in addition to payroll expenses the owner needs money to , say, buy trucks, buy tools, buy supplies. So, you denied him and kept 10 people out of work because the "math" seemed funny.

 

I'm all for criticizing leaders. I just prefer to do it with actual facts and not what a news outlet or biased congressman tells me.

Classic ploy.

 

I said a 2,000 page bill is too much for one congress person to read and understand.

 

However, don't try to change the subject. If you're going to criticize and cast ridicule then it would behoove you to actually take a minute and understand what it says. Remember, when Mitch McConnell uses simpleton math its not to be accurate. Its to deceive the uneducated and the ones who won't actually use their brain to question such an obvious distortion of the truth.

 

I'm also glad you're not a banker who would deny the guy $1M to start a construction business that will "only" employ 10 people to start. You couldn't see that in addition to payroll expenses the owner needs money to , say, buy trucks, buy tools, buy supplies. So, you denied him and kept 10 people out of work because the "math" seemed funny.

 

I'm all for criticizing leaders. I just prefer to do it with actual facts and not what a news outlet or biased congressman tells me.

 

Clyde, I'm normally with you on things. Even times when I'm not, I see your point of view. But I can't say that on this issue.

 

LBBC has correctly pointed out that a great deal of the jobs created by the stimulus are temporary. That's where your construction company/loan scenario falls short. The stimulus has mostly provided temporary positions, while the construction company is something that would go on for quite a long time. Even the White House's own language reveals that they view(ed) the stimulus as a quick fix, a jump-start to the economy, a financial band-aid, etc.

 

The only thing long-lasting about this stimulus is the debt that comes with it. George Bush started us down this path & Obama has kept the ball rolling--this idea that insane amounts of debt will get us out of this mess.

 

Again, I highly respect your opinions, but just very much disagree on this one.

Clyde, I'm normally with you on things. Even times when I'm not, I see your point of view. But I can't say that on this issue.

 

LBBC has correctly pointed out that a great deal of the jobs created by the stimulus are temporary. That's where your construction company/loan scenario falls short. The stimulus has mostly provided temporary positions, while the construction company is something that would go on for quite a long time. Even the White House's own language reveals that they view(ed) the stimulus as a quick fix, a jump-start to the economy, a financial band-aid, etc.

 

The only thing long-lasting about this stimulus is the debt that comes with it. George Bush started us down this path & Obama has kept the ball rolling--this idea that insane amounts of debt will get us out of this mess.

 

Again, I highly respect your opinions, but just very much disagree on this one.

 

Define "temporary."

 

Are there jobs that aren't potentially "temporary?"

 

My job is permanent until I do not sell enough then it, too, is "temporary."

 

Your last paragraph is a separate argument so lets keep that separate for now.

 

My whole challenge to LBBC's regurgitation of $$ spent is simply because its 100% misleading and it completely ignores the "value" of a job created.

 

It assumes incorrectly that there is no other value gained by the dollars spent than that of the income of the person receiving the employment. Incorrect and ignorant of economic principles.

 

The guy starting the construction company needs much more money today than just the money required to pay his 10 guys. However, those 10 jobs and the purchasing of equipment and supplies keeps others working in jobs that supply those materials and maybe even creates more jobs in those ancillary services. In addition, he may need the $1M today for future plans that would require him adding , say, 20 more jobs. Now the $1M is spread out over 30 jobs and not 10.

 

LBBC's reported calculations also ignore the fact that the total $$ involved are not just for new jobs. If I understand correctly it also covered tax cuts, unemployment benefits, $$ for research for new technologies, and for other purchases aimed at future economic growth.

 

So, all of this tells me that to believe that the $240k per job figure is an accurate representation of our tax dollars being spent is either literal ignorance (ie not a harsh criticism) or its partisan hack-ery.

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/11/02/misleading-math/

 

 

this was posted some time last week. I think it seetles this smushy math argument

Define "temporary."

 

Are there jobs that aren't potentially "temporary?"

 

My job is permanent until I do not sell enough then it, too, is "temporary."

 

Your last paragraph is a separate argument so lets keep that separate for now.

 

My whole challenge to LBBC's regurgitation of $$ spent is simply because its 100% misleading and it completely ignores the "value" of a job created.

 

It assumes incorrectly that there is no other value gained by the dollars spent than that of the income of the person receiving the employment. Incorrect and ignorant of economic principles.

 

The guy starting the construction company needs much more money today than just the money required to pay his 10 guys. However, those 10 jobs and the purchasing of equipment and supplies keeps others working in jobs that supply those materials and maybe even creates more jobs in those ancillary services. In addition, he may need the $1M today for future plans that would require him adding , say, 20 more jobs. Now the $1M is spread out over 30 jobs and not 10.

 

LBBC's reported calculations also ignore the fact that the total $$ involved are not just for new jobs. If I understand correctly it also covered tax cuts, unemployment benefits, $$ for research for new technologies, and for other purchases aimed at future economic growth.

 

So, all of this tells me that to believe that the $240k per job figure is an accurate representation of our tax dollars being spent is either literal ignorance (ie not a harsh criticism) or its partisan hack-ery.

 

I'm sure there are jobs that aren't as temporary as others. But I'm thinking of school systems that have been given "x" amount of dollars for this school year, and then the money won't be here during the next school year. I'm thinking of the road projects that will keep people working for six months or so, and then what? I'm thinking of the "cash for clunkers" program which led to some people getting called back to work for three months or so. This was the argument some governors used when refusing stimulus funds. The money would be there for a year or two, and when it ran out, who would be blamed when jobs had to be cut? The state would then be expected to find the funds once provided by the stimulus, and some governors didn't want that (of course, much of it was political grandstanding, but if I were in their shoes, that would be precisely my belief).

 

Sure, this stimulus created jobs. I would hope that spending a trillion dollars would do that. But for me, the reward does not outweigh the risk (the huge debt).

 

Which means that my reference to Bush & Obama's obsession with debt is not a separate argument. We've invested probably a couple trillion dollars in recovery, stimulus, & bailout packages and I firmly believe the risk we've taken on in this massive debt far outweighs the temporary rewards.

 

You may be right that the $240k per job doesn't accurately represent the value of the stimulus, but I also think it's a tremendous overstatement to say that the stimulus was put together with the forethought you've laid out in your construction business scenario.

 

The stimulus did provide money for research. And it was also loaded with earmarks--something both Republicans & Democrats constantly campaign against, yet they're all guilty of it. The stimulus, in my opinion, was a gross overreaction to a sharp downturn in the economy. Decisions by both Obama & Bush will have long-term, negative affects on the future of this country.

 

It's funny to me how the government recently placed restrictions on credit-card companies (like raising the minimum monthly payments), and then they turn right around & do just the opposite by amassing more and more debt. Increased debt is not the answer to overcoming a difficult financial situation. Increased responsibility is.