Brown: Stimulus Did Not Create One Job

[Lonestar_logic]

Obama pretty much created Browns current job didn't he?

No

 

[midcan5]

I know some of you don't trust or understand who this guy Brown is yet. He is one of us. He is the real deal, so get ready. This guy is aimed squarely at Obama.

Does the real deal only appear when a democrat wins the presidency? Where were all the real dealers when Bush Jr squandered a surplus with gifts to his rich benefactors? Seems the real deal ain't too real or maybe in their pea brains this sort of partisan idiocy is real?


The Reagan-Bush Debt is how much of the national debt of the United States is attributable to the presidencies of Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, George W. Bush, and the Republican fiscal policy of Borrow-And-Spend.

As of Wednesday, June 17, 2009 at 10:06:01AM CT,

The Current ReaganBush Debt is: $10,474,285,104,979.40 which means that in a total of 20 years, these three presidents have led to the creation of 91.80% of the entire national debt in only 8.5837% of the 233 years of the existence of the United States of America.

ReaganBushDebt.org

http://reaganbushdebt.org/CalculationDetails.aspx

 

[Gadawg73]

Please inform us what roads were built with "stimulus" $.
In this area ALL the stimulus $ is repaving roads that did not need repaving.
When your ass is running deficits in a recession it is not very smart to go out and paint the house a new coat when it was painted last year.
Sure it benefits those doing the work. But we BORROWED the friggin $ and ourkids and grandkids have to pay.
It is very easy to proclaim oneself a supporter of liberal policies when you are the beneficiary of other people's MONEY taken from someone at the point of a government gun.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

I know some of you don't trust or understand who this guy Brown is yet. He is one of us. He is the real deal, so get ready. This guy is aimed squarely at Obama.

Does the real deal only appear when a democrat wins the presidency? Where were all the real dealers when Bush Jr squandered a surplus with gifts to his rich benefactors? Seems the real deal ain't too real or maybe in their pea brains this sort of partisan idiocy is real?


The Reagan-Bush Debt is how much of the national debt of the United States is attributable to the presidencies of Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, George W. Bush, and the Republican fiscal policy of Borrow-And-Spend.

As of Wednesday, June 17, 2009 at 10:06:01AM CT,

The Current ReaganBush Debt is: $10,474,285,104,979.40 which means that in a total of 20 years, these three presidents have led to the creation of 91.80% of the entire national debt in only 8.5837% of the 233 years of the existence of the United States of America.

ReaganBushDebt.org

ReaganBushDebt.org Calculation Details

Why dont you try raw numbers instead of ones using statistics to create opinions.

US National Debt: by Presidential Term, per Capita, and as Percentage of GDP

Reagan added 1.75 trillion (218 billion a year)
Bush 1 added 1.2 trillion (300 billion a year
Clinton added 1.1 tillion (138 billion a year)
Bush 2 added 4.7 trillion (587 billion a year)
Obama added 1.5 trilliion (1,400 billion a year)

looks like obama is tripling bush's defecit spending.

 

[NYcarbineer]

when you are the beneficiary of other people's MONEY taken from someone at the point of a government gun.

This kind of hysteria and hyperbole is guaranteed to lose the argument for you.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[Why dont you try raw numbers instead of ones using statistics to create opinions.

US*National*Debt:*by*Presidential*Term,*per*Capita,*and*as*Percentage*of*GDP

Reagan added 1.75 trillion (218 billion a year)
Bush 1 added 1.2 trillion (300 billion a year
Clinton added 1.1 tillion (138 billion a year)
Bush 2 added 4.7 trillion (587 billion a year)
Obama added 1.5 trilliion (1,400 billion a year)

looks like obama is tripling bush's defecit spending.

Now adjust those numbers for the fact that the Iraq war wasn't on-budget during Bush, and that Bush let PAYGO die so he could pass the unfunded Medicare part D, and add back the amount of revenue lost from the Bush tax cuts, and then calculate how much additional interest on the debt Obama's budget has to cover from past presidents...

...then get back to us.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

That logic is fundamentally flawed. Essentially, all job creation requires investment, i.e., taking money from somewhere else. So by your model, private sector spending requires that money be taken from somewhere else in the private sector, which according to you would destroy jobs.

Secondly it is not accurate to say that government created jobs do not help the economy.

Exchanging resources in the private sector is the market at work. The government taking money out of the private sector is wealth destruction.

The government is just another player in the market. When the government builds roads, the private sector benefits. That is not a destruction of wealth.

The government operates outside of the market.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

We'd also be better off economically if everything at the Walmart, magically, was free. What's your point, exactly?

No we wouldn't. Because then Walmart wouldn't have anything and would ultimately go out of business depriving poor and middle class people of a cheap alternative to their higher prices competitors.

I asked you what your point was. You proposed an equally absurd hypothetical.

The point was to show that any government spending is a negative on the economy, be it military or otherwise. It was you who proposed the hypothetical situation of Walmart offering free products, I simply responded.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Exchanging resources in the private sector is the market at work. The government taking money out of the private sector is wealth destruction.

The government is just another player in the market. When the government builds roads, the private sector benefits. That is not a destruction of wealth.

The government operates outside of the market.

That's false. The 'market' and the government are inextricably intertwined. In fact, there is no such thing as a free market.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The government is just another player in the market. When the government builds roads, the private sector benefits. That is not a destruction of wealth.

The government operates outside of the market.

That's false. The 'market' and the government are inextricably intertwined. In fact, there is no such thing as a free market.

That would be incorrect. What other market actor maintains that they can force you to give them your money against your will, and use the force of law to give them a monopoly in any industry that they'd like? None.

 

[NYcarbineer]

No we wouldn't. Because then Walmart wouldn't have anything and would ultimately go out of business depriving poor and middle class people of a cheap alternative to their higher prices competitors.

I asked you what your point was. You proposed an equally absurd hypothetical.

The point was to show that any government spending is a negative on the economy, be it military or otherwise. It was you who proposed the hypothetical situation of Walmart offering free products, I simply responded.

The public school system that educates tens of thousands of Americans every year, and thus increases those person's value to the economy, is a negative on the economy? The highway system of this country, from interstate to local, that facilitates transportation for the movement of goods and services in this country, is a negative on the economy? The law enforcement institutions in this country, from federal to local, which enforce our laws and protect the people, protect America's businesses, are a negative on the economy?

There's a start for you.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I asked you what your point was. You proposed an equally absurd hypothetical.

The point was to show that any government spending is a negative on the economy, be it military or otherwise. It was you who proposed the hypothetical situation of Walmart offering free products, I simply responded.

The public school system that educates tens of thousands of Americans every year, and thus increases those person's value to the economy, is a negative on the economy? The highway system of this country, from interstate to local, that facilitates transportation for the movement of goods and services in this country, is a negative on the economy? The law enforcement institutions in this country, from federal to local, which enforce our laws and the protect the people, protect America's businesses, are a negative on the economy?

There's a start for you.

It's pretty simple. Taking money out of the sector where wealth is created destroys wealth. The private sector is where wealth is created, and the government takes money out of the private sector. It doesn't matter how you phrase the question or what example you give.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The point was to show that any government spending is a negative on the economy, be it military or otherwise. It was you who proposed the hypothetical situation of Walmart offering free products, I simply responded.

The public school system that educates tens of thousands of Americans every year, and thus increases those person's value to the economy, is a negative on the economy? The highway system of this country, from interstate to local, that facilitates transportation for the movement of goods and services in this country, is a negative on the economy? The law enforcement institutions in this country, from federal to local, which enforce our laws and the protect the people, protect America's businesses, are a negative on the economy?

There's a start for you.

It's pretty simple. Taking money out of the sector where wealth is created destroys wealth. The private sector is where wealth is created, and the government takes money out of the private sector. It doesn't matter how you phrase the question or what example you give.

Refute my examples. Stop hiding behind ludicrous infantile generalities.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

[Why dont you try raw numbers instead of ones using statistics to create opinions.

US*National*Debt:*by*Presidential*Term,*per*Capita,*and*as*Percentage*of*GDP

Reagan added 1.75 trillion (218 billion a year)
Bush 1 added 1.2 trillion (300 billion a year
Clinton added 1.1 tillion (138 billion a year)
Bush 2 added 4.7 trillion (587 billion a year)
Obama added 1.5 trilliion (1,400 billion a year)

looks like obama is tripling bush's defecit spending.

Now adjust those numbers for the fact that the Iraq war wasn't on-budget during Bush, and that Bush let PAYGO die so he could pass the unfunded Medicare part D, and add back the amount of revenue lost from the Bush tax cuts, and then calculate how much additional interest on the debt Obama's budget has to cover from past presidents...

...then get back to us.

Ok then we should figure in the tech bubble burst and clinton's mini recession into bush's numbers and figure in carter's economic disaster into regean's numbers

My above statement was my attempt to show the counter-hackery statement to your politically biased statement.

The numbers are what they are.

 

[jillian]

It's pretty simple. Taking money out of the sector where wealth is created destroys wealth. The private sector is where wealth is created, and the government takes money out of the private sector. It doesn't matter how you phrase the question or what example you give.

Really? Might be where wealth is created but isn't where people are WORKING. And it is also why 90% of wealth is held by 1% of the population. I suppose if that's the world you want, then you can keep praying for your Dickensian/Randian nightmare.

Government is the largest employer in the country.

And Walmart is second.

Feel free to let us know how your job as a Wal-Mart greeter goes.

 

[elvis]

It's pretty simple. Taking money out of the sector where wealth is created destroys wealth. The private sector is where wealth is created, and the government takes money out of the private sector. It doesn't matter how you phrase the question or what example you give.

Really? Might be where wealth is created but isn't where people are WORKING.

Government is the largest employer in the country.

And Walmart is second.

Feel free to let us know how your job as a Wal-Mart greeter goes.

ouch!! He's gotta have blisters from that one.

 

[Titanic Sailor]

That point is too stupid for words.

 

[Titanic Sailor]

Just to show you some of the damage that is being done by government, I am enclosing the link for the Massachusett's state payroll descending. Massachusetts is one of the states where the public workers do NOT pay into Social Security.

Look at the salaries. You will need to go to page 30 before you get to the folks making less than 150K a year. They also have a pension system that has been under attack for years. They get paid for the highest three years salary. In other words, their pension is not funded, they did not pay into the pension system what they get out, the taxpayer is on the hook for that debt. I think the pension's around 12.5% of salary. Do you get a pension like that? This is why politicians run to higher education admin positions, to boost their pensions. Is it any wonder why a college education is being denied to many?

Your tax dollars at work: 2009 State Employee Payroll - Boston Herald.com

Remember, this is just one state. Yours is just as bad if not worse. Never mind the over two million federal employees and growing. This is an enormous burden on the education of our young, and the debt of our people. While you were working, government gulped up the trough. You folks need to see data like this. The feds will not release individual salary information.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The public school system that educates tens of thousands of Americans every year, and thus increases those person's value to the economy, is a negative on the economy? The highway system of this country, from interstate to local, that facilitates transportation for the movement of goods and services in this country, is a negative on the economy? The law enforcement institutions in this country, from federal to local, which enforce our laws and the protect the people, protect America's businesses, are a negative on the economy?

There's a start for you.

It's pretty simple. Taking money out of the sector where wealth is created destroys wealth. The private sector is where wealth is created, and the government takes money out of the private sector. It doesn't matter how you phrase the question or what example you give.

Refute my examples. Stop hiding behind ludicrous infantile generalities.

I don't need to refute your individual examples as they all fall under the same category, government spending. Government takes resources out of the private sector and puts it somewhere where there is little or no demand, otherwise the private sector would have taken care of that demand in the first place. Secondly, without a proper profit and loss mechanism the government is going to inevitably waste resources which is, of course, destruction of wealth.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

It's pretty simple. Taking money out of the sector where wealth is created destroys wealth. The private sector is where wealth is created, and the government takes money out of the private sector. It doesn't matter how you phrase the question or what example you give.

Really? Might be where wealth is created but isn't where people are WORKING. And it is also why 90% of wealth is held by 1% of the population. I suppose if that's the world you want, then you can keep praying for your Dickensian/Randian nightmare.

Government is the largest employer in the country.

And Walmart is second.

Feel free to let us know how your job as a Wal-Mart greeter goes.

Would there be something wrong with being a Walmart greeter? Or is it simply not good enough for your high class lawyerly sensibilities?