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.
In the local school, we have the number of teachers that we want. It was decided by the adminstration which is supervised by an elected board of citizens. Taxes are levied upon local property to meet the budget. We also have the police force we desire, which is decided and funded in a similar fashion.
If your town needs more teachers or more police officers, go hire them--and pay for them.
The raw fact, and why everybody keeps talking past each other on this thread, is that borrowing money from China or our grandchildren to help local givernments spend more than they can afford, is nonsense. And it is even worse in the short run if the funds are subtracted from the productive sector of the economy instead of borrowed.
Some of those laid-off government workers have been made redundant by increasing productivity. Some of them were the fourth guy in the crew that leans on their shovels most of the day. Local governments are having to do more with less--just like individuals and families and businesses.
As for the hit to the overall economy, we never improve our position by wasting money (sorry, Paul Krugman.) It is a net positive when we stop wasting money. Those paychecks come from somewhere--they are subtracted from somewhere else before they are paid out. Would we be better off with a trillion dollars more public payroll? Sure, if you pretend the trillion dollars grew on trees. Not, if you realize that they had to come from somewhere.
Obama has clearly shown that he believes the path to economic vibrancy goes through an ever larger government commanding an ever-larger share of resources. This is the biggest problem with his supposed "gaffe."
1) What is nonsense is allowing unemployment to remain high when we can borrow at negative interest rates to put teachers, police and firemen back to work; what is nonsense is allowing the economy to remain below potential GDP when we have the means to get it back to potential GDP; what is nonsense is thinking that what matters is the debt left for our children and not the disservice we are doing to our college graduate children by allowing them to graduate with no jobs or having them accept under-skilled jobs that will hurt their lifetime of earnings.
2) What you don't seem to recognize is macro economics. Those public workers are your customers. When you cut public sector jobs those people aren't able to buy your products or services. When your sales go down, you lay off your workers and sooner or later we have a depression.
3) You have no right to criticize Obama's efforts to improve the job picture if you stand in the way of his efforts to improve the job picture.
4) I don't see evidence of your statement, "Obama has clearly shown that he believes the path to economic vibrancy goes through an ever larger government commanding an ever-larger share of resources." There have been no grand new government programs under Obama 'commanding an ever-larger share of resources.' If you do, I'd like you to tell me what they are.
5) Obama's statement was no gaffe, it was the truth. All of the increases in employment have been private sector and the totals have been held back by loses in state and local government layoffs.
What makes the case especially nonsense is that conservatives don't want to borrow when investors are paying the government to borrow money:
1) What is nonsense is allowing unemployment to remain high when we can borrow at negative interest rates to put teachers, police and firemen back to work; what is nonsense is allowing the economy to remain below potential GDP when we have the means to get it back to potential GDP; what is nonsense is thinking that what matters is the debt left for our children and not the disservice we are doing to our college graduate children by allowing them to graduate with no jobs or having them accept under-skilled jobs that will hurt their lifetime of earnings.
2) What you don't seem to recognize is macro economics. Those public workers are your customers. When you cut public sector jobs those people aren't able to buy your products or services. When your sales go down, you lay off your workers and sooner or later we have a depression.
3) You have no right to criticize Obama's efforts to improve the job picture if you stand in the way of his efforts to improve the job picture.
4) I don't see evidence of your statement, "Obama has clearly shown that he believes the path to economic vibrancy goes through an ever larger government commanding an ever-larger share of resources." There have been no grand new government programs under Obama 'commanding an ever-larger share of resources.' If you do, I'd like you to tell me what they are.
5) Obama's statement was no gaffe, it was the truth. All of the increases in employment have been private sector and the totals have been held back by loses in state and local government layoffs.
obama's statement was a gaffe, because most americans don't consider themselves better off now-especially in light of the major decline in wealth in this country in the last 4 years.
what has obama done to improve the job picture, seriously? i challenge any liberal to tell me why, if the government sector is so great, obama doesn't just hire ALL the unemployed for government jobs.
then everyone would be "stimulating" the economy and the "macro picture", as you put it.
obama's statement was a gaffe, because most americans don't consider themselves better off now-especially in light of the major decline in wealth in this country in the last 4 years.
That wealth decrease happened before Obama was president and is attributable to a fall in housing prices and Obama didn't cause the housing crash.
A hypothetical family richer than half the nation’s families and poorer than the other half had a net worth of $77,300 in 2010, compared with $126,400 in 2007, the Fed said. The crash of housing prices directly accounted for three-quarters of the loss.
Quote:
Originally Posted by floridasandy
what has obama done to improve the job picture, seriously? i challenge any liberal to tell me why, if the government sector is so great, obama doesn't just hire ALL the unemployed for government jobs.
then everyone would be "stimulating" the economy and the "macro picture", as you put it.
that would fix the problem, wouldn't it?
The stimulus, which was smaller than it should have been but as large as the GOP would allow, increased employment by about 2% over what it would be, according to the CBO and private economists.
The auto industry bailout saved another million jobs.
During the 1930s, the government did hire the unemployed. Are you saying we should have a WPA?
1)
..........................
What makes the case especially nonsense is that conservatives don't want to borrow when investors are paying the government to borrow money:
Did you know that in the early 1980's, US Treasury bonds has a nickname? "Certificates of confiscation." Long term treasury bonds issued in 1977 were worth only 50 cents on the dollar by 1982.
Interest rates more than doubled, causing the market value of existing bonds to decline.
It would be especially evil if the government, which has had so much to do with creating the fear and uncertainty that prevails today, after stampeding ever larger amounts of capital into treasury bonds, failed to take fiscal action that would avoid the 1977-1982 scenario. (Note: when I say government, I mean Congress as well as the administration with its EPA, NLRB, etc.etc.)
I agree that IF cost-benefit analysis on long-term infrastructure shows a positive return, we ought to be out there borrowing the money--we'll be better off if we do.
The notion that we ought to repeat the money-dump onto state and local governments so they can maintain payrolls they cannot afford, tried on a massive scale with Obama's $787 billion stimulus in 2009, is not a good one.
The stimulus, which was smaller than it should have been but as large as the GOP would allow, increased employment by about 2% over what it would be, according to the CBO and private economists.
The auto industry bailout saved another million jobs.
During the 1930s, the government did hire the unemployed. Are you saying we should have a WPA?
those jobs were only TEMPORARY, so you are advocating putting the country into greater debt (and burdening your children) for TEMPORARY employment.
those auto industry bailouts jobs are going to be leaving the country, as i pointed out in a previous thread. it is already written in the cards.
as for housing, obama should take the blame that he deserves-which is (as a lawyer) trying to force citibank to lend to anyone, whether they were qualified or not. we saw what happened with lending to people who aren't qualified, and it just makes the problems worse. those embittered people often TRASH the properties before they vacate, inflicting damage on the property values of the other homes in the neighborhood, so there are NO winners in the end of this idiotic plan.
1) What is nonsense is allowing unemployment to remain high when we can borrow at negative interest rates to put teachers, police and firemen back to work; what is nonsense is allowing the economy to remain below potential GDP when we have the means to get it back to potential GDP; what is nonsense is thinking that what matters is the debt left for our children and not the disservice we are doing to our college graduate children by allowing them to graduate with no jobs or having them accept under-skilled jobs that will hurt their lifetime of earnings.
The only way to accomplish this is through artifically created inflation and people aren't interested.
Quote:
2) What you don't seem to recognize is macro economics. Those public workers are your customers. When you cut public sector jobs those people aren't able to buy your products or services. When your sales go down, you lay off your workers and sooner or later we have a depression.
There is no gain when it is you having to pay for the salaries.
Quote:
3) You have no right to criticize Obama's efforts to improve the job picture if you stand in the way of his efforts to improve the job picture.
LOL, Obama promised to do something about jobs fleeing the country as a major part of his campaign. He has seemed to have forgot about that and now believes that the answer is not more private jobs but more public jobs.
Quote:
4) I don't see evidence of your statement, "Obama has clearly shown that he believes the path to economic vibrancy goes through an ever larger government commanding an ever-larger share of resources." There have been no grand new government programs under Obama 'commanding an ever-larger share of resources.' If you do, I'd like you to tell me what they are.
He tried with Obamacare but that's going to be shot down.
Quote:
5) Obama's statement was no gaffe, it was the truth. All of the increases in employment have been private sector and the totals have been held back by loses in state and local government layoffs.
True unemployment is far higher than the governments numbers.
Quote:
What makes the case especially nonsense is that conservatives don't want to borrow when investors are paying the government to borrow money:
Inflation. I'm not interested. Jimmy Carter tried the inflation route. It sucked.
Did you know that in the early 1980's, US Treasury bonds has a nickname? "Certificates of confiscation." Long term treasury bonds issued in 1977 were worth only 50 cents on the dollar by 1982.
Interest rates more than doubled, causing the market value of existing bonds to decline.
It would be especially evil if the government, which has had so much to do with creating the fear and uncertainty that prevails today, after stampeding ever larger amounts of capital into treasury bonds, failed to take fiscal action that would avoid the 1977-1982 scenario. (Note: when I say government, I mean Congress as well as the administration with its EPA, NLRB, etc.etc.)
I agree that IF cost-benefit analysis on long-term infrastructure shows a positive return, we ought to be out there borrowing the money--we'll be better off if we do.
The notion that we ought to repeat the money-dump onto state and local governments so they can maintain payrolls they cannot afford, tried on a massive scale with Obama's $787 billion stimulus in 2009, is not a good one.
I don't quite understand the complaint in 1980 about confiscation -- nobody was confiscating anything. Bond prices change based upon prevailing rates. When 7% bonds issued in 1977 exist in the 1980 environment of 14% bonds, their value naturally falls but nobody is forcing anyone to sell and those bonds and the government still will pay the agreed amount price at maturity. The buyer of those bonds agreed on a 7% rate and got 7% until maturity. It's no different than fixed-rate bank CDs.
Likewise, bonds issued in 1980 at 14% were worth hefty premiums when interest rates fell a few years later. All this is the nature of investing in bonds.
But at least we could agree that it makes absolute sense borrowing at negative interest rates today.
Oh, that "money dump" as you call it, saved a lot of jobs and boosted GDP. It should have been three times larger.
It's really gotta be tough being a leftwing sycophant these days. No sane person would give obama four more years to continue on the path we've been since the stupid and easily fooled voted for him the first time.
The stimulus, which was smaller than it should have been but as large as the GOP would allow, increased employment by about 2% over what it would be, according to the CBO and private economists.
The auto industry bailout saved another million jobs.
During the 1930s, the government did hire the unemployed. Are you saying we should have a WPA?
"as large as the GOP would allow" is just another liberal lie.
Oblama had supermajorities in both chambers of Congress when he rammed his pork bill through. He could have had anything passed he wanted, and he did. The GOP had no input in the pork bill and Oblama didn't seek it.
Stop trying to shift responsibility for Oblama's failed policies to Republicans who were in a tiny minority at the time. Oblama and the Democrats forced their destructive scheme of pork barrel spending to pay back his special interest supporters with no help from the GOP. They weren't interested in working with the GOP on anything, period. They still aren't.
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.
