Whats wrong with 4million jobs created?

[Bunz]

Pretty simple question, I pose to anyone. I see a lot of negativity against the stimulus package bill, and a large portion of it is about putting 4million people to work, the vast majority of which is in the private sector. Why all the fuss?

 

[Pandora]

tax payers paying to create a private job ? Isnt that really just a government job?

ok so lets say things are as dire as obama says, we are heading for ceritian death if we dont just hurry and pass this bill and not bother to look close at the fine print. Tax payers funding private jobs (really government jobs)

but for how long? forever? till things pick up? at what point will a democrat president ever say we are doing ok that we can cut these jobs?

and make no mistake about it, if obama creates private jobs with tax payer dollars (government jobs)

the moment anyone dares to say we need to stop funding these jobs how ever far down the road that might be, the evil words funding cuts will come out and that is a no no.

there are much better reasons not to make my grandchildrens children pay the burdon of our stupidity but this was the one I thought of just now

 

[Bunz]

OK, Pandora(I had to delete you past handle
For arguments sake, lets assume things are as bad as Obama is portaying it(which I think they are) what happens if the fed does nothing? Do we just let the economy crumble?

 

[pocketfullofshells]

OK, Pandora(I had to delete you past handle
For arguments sake, lets assume things are as bad as Obama is portaying it(which I think they are) what happens if the fed does nothing? Do we just let the economy crumble?

all you need to know is that noObama has to even state, lets assume things are as bad as he says.....must be in a dream world where its not clear how bad the econ is... if you cant even see that, how can anyone expect one to see the need for something to get the econ going again?

 

[Pandora]

OK, Pandora(I had to delete you past handle
For arguments sake, lets assume things are as bad as Obama is portaying it(which I think they are) what happens if the fed does nothing? Do we just let the economy crumble?

I dont see why we cant do something, but what he and pelosi are proposing is only going to make things worse and make us more in debt.

There are millions and millions of dollars in very stupid pork bills in this that does not have to be there


other rules like building bridges and roads, but only by union workers, why? so we can be sure it cost extra?? are non union workers less American? Is this package for his groups or for Americans, if its really for Americans then it woud be for all Americans, union members and non union members. Do non union workers pay less taxes than union workers, or have less a stake in the country ?

Not to mention that most of the "stim" portion of the bill apparently does not even start til 2010. If things are as dire as he says, catostrophic even.....why is the jobs portion not even coming online till so late? and why targeted to certian people like union members and not just Americans?

The bill is going to pass, and like Biden says there is a 30 percent chance its not even going to work....... and when it doesnt, they will just ask for a new bill equally as non thought out, and equally as partisan to thier groups.

its not about the people, the country....its about giving thanks to those who put egg head where he is.

 

[Andy]

Pretty simple question, I pose to anyone. I see a lot of negativity against the stimulus package bill, and a large portion of it is about putting 4million people to work, the vast majority of which is in the private sector. Why all the fuss?

The fuss is because it doesn't work. When FDR created his massive "stimulus" government works programs, the end result was a drastic crash of the economy.

FDR also used private contractors to create his 4 million jobs. The result was still horrible.

The reason is, there is a large difference between creating jobs, and creating wealth. If they were the same, and government could create both by force, then the Soviet Union would have been the most wealthy nation to ever exist.

The reason for this, is related to the misunderstanding of the concept of "wealth". Wealth is not created as easily as jobs are.

Say the government creates a job making bicycle that has only one gear. Now the government can spend billions making the bike, and create many jobs to build the bike. But what if no one wants a single-speed bike? Has any "wealth" been created by building a bike no one wants? No.

The result is the wealth has been consumed (labor pay, material used), but no wealth has been created (a product that no one wants). This has the long term effect of reducing the economy, not growing it.

Government can artificially create economic activity, but in the end, it will only be a drain on the real economic activity through the required taxes to fund those project.

 

[Bunz]

I dont see why we cant do something, but what he and pelosi are proposing is only going to make things worse and make us more in debt.

Now you are worried about the debt? You should have listened to Cheney, the debt does matter.

There are millions and millions of dollars in very stupid pork bills in this that does not have to be there

Anything specific? I know the vast majority of the money is being spent on infastructure, and one really novel idea was to upgrade the energy efficiency of government buildings is a great idea. On a local level, this was something I pushed for, especially with the high cost of energy here.

other rules like building bridges and roads, but only by union workers, why? so we can be sure it cost extra?? are non union workers less American?

Often times yes. Remember the free for all employment rush in the cleanup after Katrina? What was the biggest complaint? Thats right, tens of thousands of illegal immigrants taking jobs for cheaper, and putting others out of work because they would work cheaper.
Also, in this regard, there is no question, especially when it comes to construction jobs that union employees are more able than the average joe hired off the street.

Not to mention that most of the "stim" portion of the bill apparently does not even start til 2010. If things are as dire as he says, catostrophic even.....why is the jobs portion not even coming online till so late? and why targeted to certian people like union members and not just Americans?

Largely because the infastruture projects and others are not quite ready. For instance a large project in Alaska that does not have its structural steel already ordered and ready to ship will have to wait a year.

The bill is going to pass, and like Biden says there is a 30 percent chance its not even going to work....... and when it doesnt, they will just ask for a new bill equally as non thought out, and equally as partisan to thier groups.

And what happens if it does work? You know who gets another 4 years...could this be apart of the reason you want the country to fall apart?

its not about the people, the country....its about giving thanks to those who put egg head where he is.

Is egghead Rush or Hannity?

 

[Andy]

Now you are worried about the debt? You should have listened to Cheney, the debt does matter.

Always have been worried about debt. Nothing has changed.

Anything specific? I know the vast majority of the money is being spent on infastructure, and one really novel idea was to upgrade the energy efficiency of government buildings is a great idea. On a local level, this was something I pushed for, especially with the high cost of energy here.

Upgrading a government building, does not help the economy.

Often times yes. Remember the free for all employment rush in the cleanup after Katrina? What was the biggest complaint? Thats right, tens of thousands of illegal immigrants taking jobs for cheaper, and putting others out of work because they would work cheaper.
Also, in this regard, there is no question, especially when it comes to construction jobs that union employees are more able than the average joe hired off the street.

So only Union people are not "average joe" types off the street? I know of dozens of professional construction workers that are not Union. They would do the job just as well, if not better than a union worker.

In fact, in some cases non-union workers a much better. Most non-skilled people start out in union shops. Whereas those that are really skilled, go out on their own.

Largely because the infastruture projects and others are not quite ready. For instance a large project in Alaska that does not have its structural steel already ordered and ready to ship will have to wait a year.

A new bridge, where the old bridge worked just fine, does not help the economy. It wastes money that must be replaced by taxes, thus hindering the economy. Simply replacing infrastructure for the sake of artificially creating jobs, is not an economic stimulus.

And what happens if it does work? You know who gets another 4 years...could this be apart of the reason you want the country to fall apart?

It won't. It didn't in China. It didn't in Soviet Russia. It didn't when FDR did it. It won't now.

 

[Bunz]

The fuss is because it doesn't work. When FDR created his massive "stimulus" government works programs, the end result was a drastic crash of the economy

FDR also used private contractors to create his 4 million jobs. The result was still horrible.

Under the New Deal, the economy grew and unemployment dropped in every year except 1937.

The reason is, there is a large difference between creating jobs, and creating wealth. If they were the same, and government could create both by force, then the Soviet Union would have been the most wealthy nation to ever exist.

The reason for this, is related to the misunderstanding of the concept of "wealth". Wealth is not created as easily as jobs are.

Wealth is still generally there, jobs are what has gone. The rich are still rich. The poor are getting poorer.

Say the government creates a job making bicycle that has only one gear. Now the government can spend billions making the bike, and create many jobs to build the bike. But what if no one wants a single-speed bike? Has any "wealth" been created by building a bike no one wants? No.

I dont disagree, but that is why government is often times critical in providing at least some capital to private entities to compete in the market place. For instance, all the roads and bridges, and schools and other buildings that will be built, will all go out to bid. By private companies, who will buy equipment and materials from other private companies, who got the raw materials from another private source.

The result is the wealth has been consumed (labor pay, material used), but no wealth has been created (a product that no one wants). This has the long term effect of reducing the economy, not growing it.

Again, the bike, but it is somewhat of a bad example because, as you pointed out, not everyone needs a bike, single speed or otherwise. But we all need roads, we all need schools. With bad roads, commerce cant be conducted, or it comes at an increased cost through higher fuel consumption or larger maintenance costs.

Government can artificially create economic activity, but in the end, it will only be a drain on the real economic activity through the required taxes to fund those project.

Kinda like war?

 

[Bunz]

Always have been worried about debt. Nothing has changed.

Cheney and Bush would disagree, but I dont like defecit spending either. I could give plenty of examples where hundreds of billions have been literally blown overseas with little to no return, but that is for another thread.

Upgrading a government building, does not help the economy.

In a small way it does, and collectively it certainly has an effect, it also helps government spend less in the long run.
Lets use for example my own city hall. A relatively small(in comparison to other city halls)building. Built in the 70s, with normal windows and doors, and an antiquated forced air heating system operated by fuel oil.
When one takes up the task of modernizing and upgrading the heating systems, at the cost of just over a million dollars, we saw a return in energy savings worth $40k a year. All the while putting the project out to bid, creating wealth for the contractor, and letting a private company put private citizens to work. While the contractor purchased materials from another supplier, and ultimately it reduced the burden on the tax payers from the local community.

So only Union people are not "average joe" types off the street? I know of dozens of professional construction workers that are not Union. They would do the job just as well, if not better than a union worker
In fact, in some cases non-union workers a much better. Most non-skilled people start out in union shops. Whereas those that are really skilled, go out on their own.

We could argue all day long without any conclusion on who would do a better job individually and we wont get anywhere. My point being is that unions are much more likely to employ legal American citizens, have the union and contractor standing behind the work being done, and the actual labor force that will be required to get these jobs done in a timely and quality manner.
But if you want to have even more illegal immigrants pouring over the border and taking more jobs from otherwise qualified Americans...that is a divide we wont be able to cross.

A new bridge, where the old bridge worked just fine, does not help the economy. It wastes money that must be replaced by taxes, thus hindering the economy. Simply replacing infrastructure for the sake of artificially creating jobs, is not an economic stimulus.

yeah like that bridge that worked just fine in Minneapolis, until it collapsed and killed at least half a dozen people? Or the bridge that needs an extra lane because congesion on it is dangerous. Or the bridge near my hometown that will be built as part of this stimulus plan. It will connect a community that is divided by a river, and no bridge exists, I am happy for the folks on the north shore of Aleknagik who will finally be able to drive to work, or to go shopping directly instead of having to transition to a boat and then automobile to do thier daily business.

It won't. It didn't in China. It didn't in Soviet Russia. It didn't when FDR did it. It won't now.

Comparing China and the USSR with the US is nothing but a red herring.

 

[Andy]

Under the New Deal, the economy grew and unemployment dropped in every year except 1937.

You don't know much about the New Deal then. First the down turn in the economy ended mid 1933. The rebound had already started before FDR had passed a single bill or bit of legislation.

FDR actually had two "New Deals". The first one which he past on entering office, cut taxes, reduced federal spending, and reduced government work force, and slashed government salaries. In other words, he acted like a conservative. Under this the economy did well.

However, by 1935 to 1937, he started massive government spending. The national debt grow, the economy slowed, and eventually a recession hit in 1937.

Wealth is still generally there, jobs are what has gone. The rich are still rich. The poor are getting poorer.

I dont disagree, but that is why government is often times critical in providing at least some capital to private entities to compete in the market place. For instance, all the roads and bridges, and schools and other buildings that will be built, will all go out to bid. By private companies, who will buy equipment and materials from other private companies, who got the raw materials from another private source.

Government contracts are all temporary, and companies know this. Once the work is completed, without real economic increase, all the people will be instantly laid off again, and everything will fall back to prior levels.

Again, the bike, but it is somewhat of a bad example because, as you pointed out, not everyone needs a bike, single speed or otherwise. But we all need roads, we all need schools. With bad roads, commerce cant be conducted, or it comes at an increased cost through higher fuel consumption or larger maintenance costs.

Actually we don't "need" schools. For the past 8 years, my city that I live in, has wanted to build a second high school. Each year they try and pass a new massive tax levy to build it. The economy has been good, the economy has been bad, without any new school. Are you suggesting that if we build the school, the economy will suddenly boost? No of course not.

As for roads, we have them. Are you suggesting that if Obama blows a few billion on roads, that our economy will return? Of course not.

Blowing several billion, to save a few thousand in fuel costs, or a few hundred in maintenance, is not going to help. It will require higher federal taxes, that will offset any small savings.

Kinda like war?

Not sure how YOU mean that, but yes War is the perfect example. After WW2 was over, and the artificial demand created by government was ended, the country slumped back into a recession. Why? Because the real economic level was still much lower than what was artificially created by government.

Similarly, Obama's government works project will only have an artificially positive effect for as long as it exists.

That's the dirty secret about economic activity. Politicians can manipulate economic numbers simply by blowing money. This is because GDP includes all government expenses. Want to "make the economy rebound" instantly? Blow tons of cash.

 

[Andy]

Cheney and Bush would disagree, but I dont like defecit spending either. I could give plenty of examples where hundreds of billions have been literally blown overseas with little to no return, but that is for another thread.

You are not talking to Bush or Cheney.

In a small way it does, and collectively it certainly has an effect, it also helps government spend less in the long run.
Lets use for example my own city hall. A relatively small(in comparison to other city halls)building. Built in the 70s, with normal windows and doors, and an antiquated forced air heating system operated by fuel oil.
When one takes up the task of modernizing and upgrading the heating systems, at the cost of just over a million dollars, we saw a return in energy savings worth $40k a year. All the while putting the project out to bid, creating wealth for the contractor, and letting a private company put private citizens to work. While the contractor purchased materials from another supplier, and ultimately it reduced the burden on the tax payers from the local community.

So you spent $1 million to save roughly $40K a year. In order to break even, you'll have to wait 25 years, assuming you can actually trust the reports are accurate. Not that'd I'd ever accuse politicians of lying. (seeing as how you recently went through a number of high-profile scandals)

How much you want to bet that within 25 years, they'll upgrade the building again?

But again, that may or may not have created wealth. Wealth is only created when the finished product is actually worth something. Only if the building is sold, or if the value of what was done, exceeds the cost of doing, was wealth created. Unless your government sells the build, and it's worth $1 million over how much it would have sold for otherwise, or if in 25 years, you don't upgrade the building further and it does in fact save money, would there be wealth.

As for the contractors, unless their economic activity was sustained, then nothing was improved by it.

We could argue all day long without any conclusion on who would do a better job individually and we wont get anywhere. My point being is that unions are much more likely to employ legal American citizens, have the union and contractor standing behind the work being done, and the actual labor force that will be required to get these jobs done in a timely and quality manner.
But if you want to have even more illegal immigrants pouring over the border and taking more jobs from otherwise qualified Americans...that is a divide we wont be able to cross.

Illegals are already pouring over the border and taking jobs from otherwise qualified American's even with the pro-union mandates. So that is a red herring.

A bigger problem is the Union caused crash of the auto industry that results in more immigrants getting auto manufacture jobs. Unions have a vastly larger negative impact, than positive.

yeah like that bridge that worked just fine in Minneapolis, until it collapsed and killed at least half a dozen people? Or the bridge that needs an extra lane because congesion on it is dangerous. Or the bridge near my hometown that will be built as part of this stimulus plan. It will connect a community that is divided by a river, and no bridge exists, I am happy for the folks on the north shore of Aleknagik who will finally be able to drive to work, or to go shopping directly instead of having to transition to a boat and then automobile to do thier daily business.

So your theory is that by having a bridge built, your economy will be better, when they already are able to buy things, it just requires an extra step?

Comparing China and the USSR with the US is nothing but a red herring.

No actually it's not. You can draw a clear consistent comparison between policies enacted in those locations, and their result, to policies enacted in our country, and the results.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

tax payers paying to create a private job ? Isnt that really just a government job?

there are much better reasons not to make my grandchildrens children pay the burdon of our stupidity but this was the one I thought of just now

Yeah.....we need to finance more faith-based efforts......for real-Americans, right?​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

I dont see why we cant do something, but what he and pelosi are proposing is only going to make things worse and make us more in debt.

There are millions and millions of dollars in very stupid pork bills in this that does not have to be there.

List them.

​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

The fuss is because it doesn't work. When FDR created his massive "stimulus" government works programs, the end result was a drastic crash of the economy.

FDR also used private contractors to create his 4 million jobs. The result was still horrible.

Yeah.....and, we've (still) got nothing to show for it, right?

​