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.
So you guys (or gals, I don't know) would be okay with massive teacher layoffs and massive public sector layoffs (affecting unemployment), as long as the private sector receives federal funds and picks up its pieces?
It's not a zero-sum game...something the left often ignores. Enhanced private sector growth creates an income stream (taxes) that in turn allow local governments to provide for the requirements of their citizens. What would you choose, a whole bunch of very well compensated government employees in an area with no economic base?
It's not a zero-sum game...something the left often ignores. Enhanced private sector growth creates an income stream (taxes) that in turn allow local governments to provide for the requirements of their citizens.
I'm not exaxctly "the left" .
And yes, I understand that government jobs (federal, state, and local) are based on revenue - mostly gotten from workers in the private sector. So naturally an uplifted private sector through federal "stimulation" would lead to the recovery of revenue to pay for public sector workers.
However, that still ignores "today". Without federal money this go round, many, many teachers would have been laid off (and I am assuming many other public workers, but I know about teachers as that is my former field of work). So while it is all fine and dandy that these jobs return when the private sector boosts the economy back up, what happens until then - especially when the economy will take much time this go round to recover?
That is why some of the federal stimulis had to go to states - because we know that the private sector boosts the economy, but we do not have time to wait for it when the public sector jobs needed help right now too.
Sorry I wrote it that way, I wasn't directing that comment at you personally. And I like the thought that you put into your posts. Long term, I feel that education funding needs to come from the local level, with local input. And as such, the level of funding must be sustainable within that community. As to getting through the duration of this recession...mixed feelings. I agree with the importance of a quality school system, and stim funds help get over this rough streatch. However, many states and locales have spent and desire a level of service that they are unable to sustain.
Looking at it as a private sector guy, it's tough to see government employees (including teaching positions) often getting through rough spells like this untouched, while cutbacks ripple through the private sector. It feels like there is too much of a disconnect with reality in government organizations.
School districts are required by law to maintain student/teacher ratios. If there had not been stimulus money, districts would have still had to fill those teacher positions, as they did in every other year there were budget problems and no stimulus.
School districts are required by law to maintain student/teacher ratios. If there had not been stimulus money, districts would have still had to fill those teacher positions, as they did in every other year there were budget problems and no stimulus.
Out of curiosity, do you know what that ratio is? Around here there has been a lot of hiring going on at the schools, the S/T ratio is low from what I see.
This is just another fact. Since food stamps start out and tend to be passed around in the lower income levels, the dollars involved turn over many more times than those that might be put into the economy as say tax cuts for the rich. In fact, food stamp increases will produce some three to four times the economic activity per dollar per unit of time that many tax cuts for the rich will, thus they have a much higher stimulative effect. All you're doing here is providing another example of someone railing at something simply because he doesn't understand it.
I note how you conveniently picked and chose what part of the posting to respond to, while leaving out the question about why we dont just wait until 50% of america are unemployed, and let food stamps be the end all to a massive recovery. Why did you leave this part out... mmmm
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista
LOL. The only incentive that would provide would be toward coming up with new and unique ways to redefine an already existing job as a new job. That's why this idea was tossed on the scrap heap very early on.
Unlike that well defined definition set by the administration of what a "job" is right? We wouldnt want THAT to become an issue..
So is everybody else. On average, about 20% of your income is directly or indirectly dependent upon federal, state, and local government funding.
Thats pretty assumptive of you, do you mind tell me how MY income might be directly or indirectly dependent upon ANY government funding... This should be good to hear because I'm anxiously awaiting to find out where my missing 20% is..
The fact that some CD poster or other cannot fathom the math involved in doing up economic models and projections does not turn the results of those into propaganda. I'll bet he couldn't do heart transplant surgery either, but that doesn't mean that others can't, or that heart transplant surgery doesn't in fact produce many quite wonderful outcomes.
This is just another fact. Since food stamps start out and tend to be passed around in the lower income levels, the dollars involved turn over many more times than those that might be put into the economy as say tax cuts for the rich. In fact, food stamp increases will produce some three to four times the economic activity per dollar per unit of time that many tax cuts for the rich will, thus they have a much higher stimulative effect. All you're doing here is providing another example of someone railing at something simply because he doesn't understand it.
The math? Saggy, you are a funny gal. I took graduate level partial differential equations and matrices in college, so I have a fair handle on simple math. Here it is again for you
If jobs lost are greater than jobs gained- unemployment rises.
Even you, in your delusional marxist state of mind, actually admitted that high unemployment was unfavorable. If true, then Obama's INCREASE in unemployment is a negative outcome of a failed policy. Hint here Saggy- successful policies usually achieve the intended result , which would be a DECREASE in unemployment. Get it? If not, particuarly since they apparently do not teach simple math at marxist institutions in DC, we can go through it again for you.
Again Saggy, since you state that food stamps are the greatest stimulus to the economy, can you cordially explain to me why high food stamp use areas such as Watts and Flint are not the most prosperous in the US? If your logic was true, Beverly Hills would be a ghetto and Watts would be the seat of economic prosperity. Facts and the real world sometimes get in the way of marxist fantasies and theories, but I would really like for you to think about the nonsense that you spew. When something sounds like BS, it usually is. Your food stamp theory (I know that your fellow leftists, including San Fran Nan say this crap all the time) does not bear out real life observations and is therefore a big crock, just like most of the mindless drivel that you repeat from your handlers. Is everyone in DC that brainwashed that they can no longer think?
So Saggy, tell us again, since foodstamps are so great, why having 50% unemployment and more than half the nation on foodstamps would not be such a great thing? If foodstamps are the road to economic prosperity, as you imply, 80% unemployment and the entire country on food stamps would be the road to wealth and happiness. The sense of liberalism is nonsense. These are the same guys that told us we did not need manufacturing jobs, as we would prosper with a "service oriented" economy. What a bunch of idiots.
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.
. 
