Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The stimulus kept those jobs from being lost 2 YEARS ago when - instead of the economy GROWING as it is NOW - it was SHRINKING. This means that at least those laid-off employees have a better chance of landing ANOTHER job - something they would have been unlikely to be able to do when the PRIVATE SECTOR was shedding jobs by the millions. NOW at least, the private sector is GROWING AGAIN. Besides, aren't these the type of jobs REPUBLICANS WANT to eliminate (ie government jobs)? Im sure if you had YOUR way, you'd get rid of EVEN MORE.
"The deep cuts state and local governments will have to make to balance their books in the next fiscal year should clip about one percentage point from the U.S. gross domestic product -- about 30 basis points more than in the current fiscal year, the report said. "The public sector is holding back growth but it doesn't derail it altogether," Harris said."
Ken
All it does is draw out the inevitable, while dragging down the middle class.
Had it all gone bust, there would not have been a flat line for so long, dragging down the middle class.
It hits bottom, to come back a roar.
All it does is draw out the inevitable, while dragging down the middle class.
Had it all gone bust, there would not have been a flat line for so long, dragging down the middle class.
It hits bottom, to come back a roar.
Or it would have just hit a lower point back then and STILL remained dragged out for a long time. The last few recoveries from recessions have not really been cases where things have "come back a roar". It took time for the financial mess to get cleaned up and things to sort themselves out so the economy could start to grow again in any meaningful way. Having even MORE people unemployed sure wasn't going to speed THAT up any.
Or it would have just hit a lower point back then and STILL remained dragged out for a long time. The last few recoveries from recessions have not really been cases where things have "come back a roar". It took time for the financial mess to get cleaned up and things to sort themselves out so the economy could start to grow again in any meaningful way. Having even MORE people unemployed sure wasn't going to speed THAT up any.
Ken
Oh, please. All the stimulus succeeded in doing was allowing the municipalities to delay the day of reckoning. Well, that day is here now, only now we have an additional trillion in debt and we're no better off than pre-stimulus. The stimulus only allowed municipalities to continue spending money at their current rates, when they should have started their fiscal prudence 2 years ago.
Oh, please. All the stimulus succeeded in doing was allowing the municipalities to delay the day of reckoning. Well, that day is here now, only now we have an additional trillion in debt and we're no better off than pre-stimulus. The stimulus only allowed municipalities to continue spending money at their current rates, when they should have started their fiscal prudence 2 years ago.
Many municipalities HAVE done just that. My local school district here in San Antonio (and the other local ones) have not been hiring new positions and are not replacing the ones that aren't mandatory. Even with all of that, the situation is still bad.
Many municipalities HAVE done just that. My local school district here in San Antonio (and the other local ones) have not been hiring new positions and are not replacing the ones that aren't mandatory. Even with all of that, the situation is still bad.
Good for them. When did their stimulus dollars run out? I have no doubt that many cuts weren't even conceived of prior to the spigot of federal stimulus being shut off.
Oh, please. All the stimulus succeeded in doing was allowing the municipalities to delay the day of reckoning. Well, that day is here now, only now we have an additional trillion in debt and we're no better off than pre-stimulus.
Except that NOW the PRIVATE SECTOR is HIRING AGAIN. Something it WASN'T DOING 2 years ago. All that laying off those employees would have do back then was to transfer the cost of their GoVERNMENT SALARIES into the cost of their GOVERNMENT UNEMPLOYMENT (BOTH come out of gevernment coffers).
It IS true that it would have resulted in less government money being spent DIRECTLY to support those folks (since unemployment is less than their salaries), but it also would have resulted in a LESS money going into the economy (since those folks would have had less to spend) - and with LESS money going into the economy EVEN MORE people would have lost their jobs (resulting is LESS tax revenues and MORE unemployment payments as the ripple effect spread out to the rest of the economy).
There is a fundimental difference between when a private company lays off employees and when the government (specifically State and Federal) lays off employees. In the former case, that company is done paying the person they laid off - whereas in the latter case the government CONTINUES to have to pay for that person (through unemployment). Consequently it doesn't make a lot of sense for the government to lay off workers when those workers are unlikely to find other jobs anytime soon.
And YES I KNOW that employers pay into the unemployment fund - but for all practical purposes during times of high unemployment the vast bulk of the load falls upon government (over the longer term employers can replenish the fund, but in the shorter (more immediate) term it's the government that supports the Unemployment Insurance system).
Ken
Last edited by LordBalfor; 05-30-2011 at 08:50 AM..
Except that NOW the PRIVATE SECTOR is HIRING AGAIN. Something it WASN'T DOING 2 years ago. All that laying off those employees would have do back then was to transfer the cost of their GoVERNMENT SALARIES into the cost of their GOVERNMENT UNEMPLOYMENT (BOTH come out of gevernment coffers).
Someone needs to tell lordbalfor, that the private sector doesnt hire teachers.. Ooh wait, thats right.. they can always be retrained to work in McDonalds..
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor
It IS true that it would have resulted in less government money being spent DIRECTLY to support those folks, but it also would have resulted in a LESS money going into the economy (since those folks would have had less to spend) - and with LESS money going into the economy EVEN MORE people would have lost their jobs (resulting is LESS tax revenues and MORE unemployment payments as the ripple effect spread out to the rest of the economy).
Ken
btw Lord.. have you read the reports which show that the stimulus actually COST jobs? Thats what happens when you drain the economy of capital that would have otherwise been invested, to "create" jobs at $500,000 a piece.
You have absolutely NOTHING to indicate what you say is true and in fact the opposite is true. When government TAKES MONEY out of the economy, the direct result IS less money going into the economy. Where on gods earth do you think government gets it from
Someone needs to tell lordbalfor, that the private sector doesnt hire teachers.. Ooh wait, thats right.. they can always be retrained to work in McDonalds..
First of all there IS such a thing as PRIVATE SCHOOLS. More to the POINT though is that folks CAN and DO change careers. There ARE such things as PRIVATE TUTORS and CORPORATE TRAINERS - not to mention completely different jobs
Besides, how does THAT argument (ie that the private sector doesn't hire teachers) support the case that those folks should have been laid off 2 years ago?
btw Lord.. have you read the reports which show that the stimulus actually COST jobs? Thats what happens when you drain the economy of capital that would have otherwise been invested, to "create" jobs at $500,000 a piece.
Yeah, I've read such reports. They are a bunch of Rightwing BUNK.
You have absolutely NOTHING to indicate what you say is true and in fact the opposite is true. When government TAKES MONEY out of the economy, the direct result IS less money going into the economy. Where on gods earth do you think government gets it from
How did the stimulus TAKE money out of the economy? It PUMPED MONEY into the economy. You MIGHT be able to argue that it took money out of the economy if taxes were raised by the SAME AMOUNT at the time, but that's NOT the case. This was simply money pumped into the economy that would NOT have been there otherwise. And don't give the BS argument that by borrowing that money that that money was not available for OTHERS to borrow. The fact is, no one was LOANING much money at the time ANYWAY (the financial markets were LOCK UP). Yours is a bogus argument that makes no sense.
Except that NOW the PRIVATE SECTOR is HIRING AGAIN. Something it WASN'T DOING 2 years ago. All that laying off those employees would have do back then was to transfer the cost of their GoVERNMENT SALARIES into the cost of their GOVERNMENT UNEMPLOYMENT (BOTH come out of gevernment coffers).
It IS true that it would have resulted in less government money being spent DIRECTLY to support those folks (since unemployment is less than their salaries), but it also would have resulted in a LESS money going into the economy (since those folks would have had less to spend) - and with LESS money going into the economy EVEN MORE people would have lost their jobs (resulting is LESS tax revenues and MORE unemployment payments as the ripple effect spread out to the rest of the economy).
There is a fundimental difference between when a private company lays off employees and when the government (specifically State and Federal) lays off employees. In the former case, that company is done paying the person they laid off - whereas in the latter case the government CONTINUES to have to pay for that person (through unemployment). Consequently it doesn't make a lot of sense for the government to lay off workers when those workers are unlikely to find other jobs anytime soon.
And YES I KNOW that employers pay into the unemployment fund - but for all practical purposes during times of high unemployment the vast bulk of the load falls upon government (over the longer term employers can replenish the fund, but in the shorter (more immediate) term it's the government that supports the Unemployment Insurance system).
Ken
Bunk. All it did was prolong the inevitable cuts, prolong the recovery, and add to the national debt which we will be repaying for years to come.
I guess we'll see if QEIII comes to life or not.
If we have a QEIII then the Fed doesn't have much faith in the US economy rising on it's own.
We had QE which was supposed to be "temporary" and avoid moral hazard. How did that turn out ?
I'm just going to wait and see. QEII is over in June. No more QE's they say, yet the chatter of QEIII has been uttered.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
