Reagan did it... Clinton did it...

Since gubmint has no money of its own, all of those "created" jobs in the bureaucracy take money away from the private sector that could be used for productive pursuits.

Parable of the broken window

Like creating a consumer base?

Doesnt matter how many widgets you have to sell if theres no one to buy them...go check up on Henry Ford and youll see what I mean.
Henry Ford used and risked his own money.

Keynesians are nothing more than overdressed and overeducated alchemists.

alchemy or voodoo...are those our only choices?
 
Like creating a consumer base?

Doesnt matter how many widgets you have to sell if theres no one to buy them...go check up on Henry Ford and youll see what I mean.
Henry Ford used and risked his own money.

Keynesians are nothing more than overdressed and overeducated alchemists.

alchemy or voodoo...are those our only choices?
No...We could just quit pretending that gubmint meddling in the economy does anyone any favors.

A stretch for the cultists who bow in the direction of Capitoline Hill several times a day....I know.
 
we get the economy the Republicans planned

dear, BO had a super majority. All Republicans voted against stimulus that BO passed. Then the BO stimulus failed. What does that tell you?
Failed? Failed? Jesus, Ed, I'm not sure whom to believe.

The CBO said the Obama stimulus, compromised by cons as it was, still created between 1.5M AND 3.2m Jobs.

But then there is ed. The economic genius that you are. Now I just don't know who to believe.

Oh, Hell, think I will go with the CBO. They have evidence, and Ed, you , as usual, has NONE.
 
we get the economy the Republicans planned

dear, BO had a super majority. All Republicans voted against stimulus that BO passed. Then the BO stimulus failed. What does that tell you?
Failed? Failed? Jesus, Ed, I'm not sure whom to believe.

The CBO said the Obama stimulus, compromised by cons as it was, still created between 1.5M AND 3.2m Jobs.

But then there is ed. The economic genius that you are. Now I just don't know who to believe.

Oh, Hell, think I will go with the CBO. They have evidence, and Ed, you , as usual, has NONE.
And oh, yeah, Ed. Just to help you out. Three repubs voted for the stimulus. You should kick the ass of the person who lied to you about that!!!

Jese, what do you think, folks. Was it eds handler that lied? Or ed?
 
dear, BO had a super majority. All Republicans voted against stimulus that BO passed. Then the BO stimulus failed. What does that tell you?

that congressional republicans are using the system in a way the founders didnt intend

actually the founders did 100% intend the system be used to protect freedom from big liberal government. Stupid????
Jese, Ed. Being insultive again. You should stop that. Just continues to make you look stupid and childish.

Somewhere, someone smarter than you asked you if you had ever heard of the East Indies Tea Company. You know, the Tea Party and so forth. The founders were much more worried about corporations than gov. Study the subject. You know, google and all that stuff. See why there were so many restrictions on corporatism in every state. But then, you don't do research, do you, ed. Just bobble head stuff, repeat the crap your handlers tell you. Sad, really sad.
 
Initially, the privilege of incorporation was granted selectively to enable activities that benefited the public, such as construction of roads or canals.

you said you wanted protection from corporations.

Do you want to make say the fortune 500 illegal for your protection??

no, I said our founding fathers sought protection of freedom from big corporations.
Hard to argue with Ed. There is no kernel of logic in his statements, just regurgitation of the talking points his handlers give him. Getting into a war of wits with ed is not fair to him, as he does not have the ammo to fight back. Just keeps making a fool of himself, but can't see it for some time. Then Ed turns to throwing out childish insults.

Ed, in short, is just a tea bagger.
 
Initially, the privilege of incorporation was granted selectively to enable activities that benefited the public, such as construction of roads or canals.

you said you wanted protection from corporations.

Do you want to make say the fortune 500 illegal for your protection??

no, I said our founding fathers sought protection of freedom from big corporations.
Hard to argue with Ed. There is no kernel of logic in his statements, just regurgitation of the talking points his handlers give him. Getting into a war of wits with ed is not fair to him, as he does not have the ammo to fight back. Just keeps making a fool of himself, but can't see it for some time. Then Ed turns to throwing out childish insults.

Ed, in short, is just a tea bagger.
 
The public sector is not shrinking!!!!! Obama is full of lies!!!!

Your chart only shows government jobs. The reality is that government jobs fell at the same rate as the private sector. Over the last 5 months government jobs are way are up compared to civilian jobs. The red line has government jobs added in. The blue one is civilian jobs only.

fredgraph.png
 
Henry Ford used and risked his own money.

Keynesians are nothing more than overdressed and overeducated alchemists.

alchemy or voodoo...are those our only choices?
No...We could just quit pretending that gubmint meddling in the economy does anyone any favors.

A stretch for the cultists who bow in the direction of Capitoline Hill several times a day....I know.


Government employing people to provide government services is not "meddling" Its government.
 
It is when those bureaucrats and bureaucracies become completely unnecessary burdens at the least and overbearing impediments at worse, as they have become.

Youre talking about waste, which is completely off the subject of government employees stimulate economies when they spend their salaries.
 
Public employment increased during recessions under Reagan, Bush 41, Clinton, Bush 43. But now with a Republican House of Representatives, a compromised/filibustered Senate in coordination with Republican Governors and legislatures have fired 600,000 public sector workers since 2008, combined with the reverse of Keynes multiplier factor we get the economy the Republicans planned.

Weakening the American economy gives aid and comfort to our enemies.





Public-sector austerity in one graph - The Washington Post


gov%20employment%20four%20recessions.png


On Friday, I ran some numbers on public-sector employment:
Since Obama was elected, the public sector has lost about 600,000 jobs. If you put those jobs back, the unemployment rate would be 7.8 percent.

But what if we did more than that? At this point in George W. Bush’s administration, public-sector employment had grown by 3.7 percent. That would be equal to a bit over 800,000 jobs today. If you add those hypothetical jobs, the unemployment rate falls to 7.3 percent.
Today, Ben Polak, chairman of the economics department at Yale University, and Peter K. Schott, professor of economics at the Yale School of Management, widen the lens, with similar results:
There is something historically different about this recession and its aftermath: in the past, local government employment has been almost recession-proof. This time it’s not.

Going back as long as the data have been collected (1955), with the one exception of the 1981 recession, local government employment continued to grow almost every month regardless of what the economy threw at it. But since the latest recession began, local government employment has fallen by 3 percent, and is still falling. In the equivalent period following the 1990 and 2001 recessions, local government employment grew 7.7 and 5.2 percent. Even following the 1981 recession, by this stage local government employment was up by 1.4 percent...

Without this hidden austerity program, the economy would look very different. If state and local governments had followed the pattern of the previous two recessions, they would have added 1.4 million to 1.9 million jobs and overall unemployment would be 7.0 to 7.3 percent instead of 8.2 percent.
In the graph atop this post, I ran the numbers on total government employment after the 1981, 1990, 2001 and 2008 recessions. I made government employment on the eve of the recession equal to “1,” so what you’re seeing is total change in the ensuing 54 months, which is how much time has elapsed since the start of this recession.
As you can see, government employment tends to rise during recessions, helping to cushion their impact. But with the exception of a spike when we hired temporary workers for the decennial census, it’s fallen sharply during this recession.

Note that a Republican was president after the 1981, 1990 and 2000 recessions. Public-sector austerity looks a lot better to conservatives when they’re out of power than when they’re in it.

gov sector unemployment is 4.2 %......

your turn...
 
It is when those bureaucrats and bureaucracies become completely unnecessary burdens at the least and overbearing impediments at worse, as they have become.

Youre talking about waste, which is completely off the subject of government employees stimulate economies when they spend their salaries.
I get it....You're being obtuse on purpose.

From whence does the money come to pay the bureaucrat?
 
What does the government produce?
What do CEO's produce?
What do entrepreneurs produce?

Workers produce, CEO's facilitate. The government is not a worker. It does not produce. However, government money pays contractors who produce, and government employees that produce.

Bridges,for example. I could name lots of services and projects that the government produce.

Government spending is part of GNP.

So, what was your point??
 
What does the government produce?
What do CEO's produce?
What do entrepreneurs produce?

Workers produce, CEO's facilitate. The government is not a worker. It does not produce. However, government money pays contractors who produce, and government employees that produce.

Bridges,for example. I could name lots of services and projects that the government produce.

Government spending is part of GNP.

So, what was your point??
Gubmint has no money of its own...It produces no added value to anything....Everything it has gets taken from someone else, by physical force if necessary.

That's the point.
 
Don't cha understand people that public sector jobs don't stimulate the economy? Public sector employees are paid by state and local government. Where does the government get the money? That's right they confiscate it sometimes at the point of a gun from the citizens. The net growth is zero. Didn't you learn anything in economy 101 or was it taught by municipal workers?

economy 101? You obviously missed that class.

Every one of those public sector workers has to eat right? They live somewhere, right? They buy gas and food and clothes and cable tv and toasters.

If you think their spending doesnt stimulate the economy, then you dont understand how the economy works.

thats a trow away statement, the point is do you believe in the multiplier effect.
 

Forum List

Back
Top