WASHINGTON – A wave of census layoffs cut the nation's payrolls in June for the first time in six months, while private employers added a modest number of jobs. The unemployment rate dipped to 9.5 percent, its lowest level in almost a year.
Employers cut 125,000 jobs last month, the most since October, the Labor Department said Friday. The loss was driven by the end of 225,000 temporary census jobs. Businesses added a net total of 83,000 workers, an improvement from May. But that's also below March and April totals.
The unemployment rate dropped from 9.7 percent to 9.5 percent, the lowest level since July 2009. But it fell because 652,000 people gave up on their job searches and left the labor force. People who are no longer looking for work aren't counted as unemployed.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100702/ap_on_bi_go_ec_fi/us_economy
Okay, so job stats were bolstered by 225,000 temp jobs for the census. That's an average of 4500 per state. I suppose that was somewhat better than being paid for un-productivity.
I'm waiting to see if the admin tries to call this .2% drop in employment a turn-around considering it dropped because 652,000 people gave up looking for work. They should put VP Biden on this one. He's got a long enough string of BS to make it sound like this is hope & change.
Christine Romer says (http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/07/02/employment-situation-june):
Quote"The unemployment rate fell two-tenths of a percentage point for the second month in a row. At 9.5%, the unemployment rate is now six-tenths of a percentage point below its high last year. However, the drop in the unemployment rate was driven in large part by a substantial decline in the labor force, which we expect to be reversed as employment prospects continue to improve."
Thus,
Quote"While this report suggests a continuation of gradual labor market repair, it is important to emphasize the magnitude of the damage that remains from the recession. Payroll employment is still down 7.5 million from its pre-recession peak and the unemployment rate is more than 5 percentage points above its pre-recession low. It is essential that we focus on accelerating job growth. That is why the President continues to work with the Congress to pass targeted jobs measures (http://connectedplanetonline.com/IP-NGN/news/announce-broadband-stimulus-round-2-winners-0702/) such as an extension of emergency unemployment insurance, a program for small business lending that will enable small firms to get the credit they need to expand and create jobs, and more aid for troubled state and local governments to prevent layoffs of teachers, firefighters, and police. These are fiscally responsible measures that would have a substantial impact on the rate of job growth."
Quote from: we vs us on July 02, 2010, 09:38:40 AM
Christine Romer says (http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/07/02/employment-situation-june):
Thus,
But according to Nancy Pelosi, "Unemployment checks are the best way to create jobs," so it would follow that the more people on unemployment, the more jobs we are creating.
You really can't argue with that logic. These are top notch folks.
Quote from: Gaspar on July 02, 2010, 09:46:05 AM
But according to Nancy Pelosi, "Unemployment checks are the best way to create jobs," so it would follow that the more people on unemployment, the more jobs we are creating.
You really can't argue with that logic. These are top notch folks.
Unemployment check$ >>> unemployed person or family >>>> spends it on rent/utilities/food/clothing/medical >>>> dumping $ directly into the economy.
It ain't perfect, but it works.
Quote from: we vs us on July 02, 2010, 09:50:59 AM
Unemployment check$ >>> unemployed person or family >>>> spends it on rent/utilities/food/clothing/medical >>>> dumping $ directly into the economy.
It ain't perfect, but it works.
You have to admit, on the surface, that is an incredibly stupid quote coming from the Speaker Of The House.
I guess I am curious where all these well paying jobs are supposed to come from now that so much manufacturing has been exported to China?
How can there be a "recovery" when there are no jobs to recover?
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on July 02, 2010, 10:29:37 AM
I guess I am curious where all these well paying jobs are supposed to come from now that so much manufacturing has been exported to China?
How can there be a "recovery" when there are no jobs to recover?
Or when stimulus money is used to bolster jobs in China, like this bonanza in wind farm work.
Quote from: Conan71 on July 02, 2010, 09:54:15 AM
You have to admit, on the surface, that is an incredibly stupid quote coming from the Speaker Of The House.
Meh. Sure. It's not the sharpest comment but if you use your noggin' you can understand the point she's making, and the point is (arguably) valid. I feel the same way about Biden (and about GWB, for the record): gaffes are the lowest and cheapest form of political criticism. Ultimately, they give you the least insight into what's truly important: how a person thinks and how a person votes.
Quote from: we vs us on July 02, 2010, 03:34:11 PM
Meh. Sure. It's not the sharpest comment but if you use your noggin' you can understand the point she's making, and the point is (arguably) valid. I feel the same way about Biden (and about GWB, for the record): gaffes are the lowest and cheapest form of political criticism. Ultimately, they give you the least insight into what's truly important: how a person thinks and how a person votes.
I wouldn't exactly call it creating jobs though, more like maintaining a minimul level of jobs.
Quote from: custosnox on July 02, 2010, 03:46:47 PM
I wouldn't exactly call it creating jobs though, more like maintaining a minimul level of jobs.
Promoting and sustaining mediocrity, which is what most all entitlement and safety net programs do.
Quote from: Conan71 on July 02, 2010, 03:49:15 PM
Promoting and sustaining mediocrity, which is what most all entitlement and safety net programs do.
Eaaaasy, Tiger.
Quote from: we vs us on July 02, 2010, 03:34:11 PM
Meh. Sure. It's not the sharpest comment but if you use your noggin' you can understand the point she's making, and the point is (arguably) valid. I feel the same way about Biden (and about GWB, for the record): gaffes are the lowest and cheapest form of political criticism. Ultimately, they give you the least insight into what's truly important: how a person thinks and how a person votes.
I don't think this was a gaff. It is exactly the philosophy of congress and the administration. You are correct, "if you use your noggin" this IS the argument for the trickle-up economic model. The same old argument.
Provide an influx of cash at the bottom and stimulate the economy. So I suppose we just sit back now and wait for the prosperity?
NO
The problem in this model is it leaves out the production component.
Subsidization is not stimulation, and it cannot create growth. These people would purchase far more goods and services if they had jobs that provided more income and actual opportunity.
Even an actual (non Pelosi) trickle up model where we have incentives for lower income people that allow them a larger stake in the market by purchasing more goods and services, produces negative (or neutral) growth, because the incentive comes at a greater price to the producers than it creates in demand, and since companies do not pay taxes, the price of goods and services increases to balance the difference.
So if you "use your noggin" you actually come to the conclusion that lowering unemployment is DONE by creating jobs (duh), and creating jobs is done by stimulating businesses, and stimulating businesses creates even more jobs that stimulate even more business. . .
The engine fuels itself, all you have to do is prime it, you do that by pouring gas in the carburetor, not the muffler.
Quote from: Gaspar on July 02, 2010, 04:08:01 PM
Subsidization is not stimulation, and it cannot create growth. These people would purchase far more goods and services if they had jobs that provided more income and actual opportunity.
I think the Administration agrees with you, (http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/index.php?topic=15825.0) and would love to have the private sector primed and ready to hire again. But they aren't, as evidenced by the latest job report.
This may or may not leave out the production component, but what she's addressing directly is the demand component. Adding survival money into people's pocket immediately allows them to buy things they need to live.
One huge problem is the carburetor is in China.
And we keep pouring - to the tune of trillions per year - up the muffler of the top 1 percenters.
But then, they are the only ones who can afford to own their very own politicians.
And at this point I wouldn't even mind if they got a discount from the standard tax rates down to our rate. That would take care of any deficit and would likely eliminate the debt in a couple years.
Or, alternately, let us get away with a maximum of 16%. That would be even better.
Quote from: Conan71 on July 02, 2010, 03:49:15 PM
Promoting and sustaining mediocrity, which is what most all entitlement and safety net programs do.
That's better than promoting and sustaining failure.
It would be nice, though, if we could capture some of the idle labor by putting those on unemployment more than a few weeks or a month to work doing useful stuff for the various levels of government two or three days a week, leaving them the rest of their time to look for a regular job. It would help ameliorate some of the pain of the budget cuts.
I bet there's enough people on unemployment here in Tulsa to get the parks mowed and graffiti abated...
Quote from: nathanm on July 06, 2010, 05:49:30 PM
That's better than promoting and sustaining failure.
It would be nice, though, if we could capture some of the idle labor by putting those on unemployment more than a few weeks or a month to work doing useful stuff for the various levels of government two or three days a week, leaving them the rest of their time to look for a regular job. It would help ameliorate some of the pain of the budget cuts.
I bet there's enough people on unemployment here in Tulsa to get the parks mowed and graffiti abated...
Good luck trying to implement that idea. It's not a bad idea but I can envision cries of heart conditions, heat problems, child care.......
Quote from: Red Arrow on July 06, 2010, 06:07:30 PM
Good luck trying to implement that idea. It's not a bad idea but I can envision cries of heart conditions, heat problems, child care.......
If a person is on unemployment, they were previously employed and are not disabled. It might be hard to match needed work to a person's physical capabilities, but I'm sure there are things that people who are unable to do physical labor can do that we need, even if it is something as simple as answering phones. It just seems silly to let all this available labor go to waste when we're already paying for it through unemployment and we need people to do some minor jobs that the city can't afford right now.
Quote from: nathanm on July 06, 2010, 05:49:30 PM
That's better than promoting and sustaining failure.
It would be nice, though, if we could capture some of the idle labor by putting those on unemployment more than a few weeks or a month to work doing useful stuff for the various levels of government two or three days a week, leaving them the rest of their time to look for a regular job. It would help ameliorate some of the pain of the budget cuts.
I bet there's enough people on unemployment here in Tulsa to get the parks mowed and graffiti abated...
I like it. You can do that with your excess processor power. Volunteer your desktop to any number of scientific organizations and they'll take some of your CPU power for larger calculations during downtime (overnight, while you're at work, etc). Think of worker "processing power" the same way.
Quote from: nathanm on July 06, 2010, 06:26:38 PM
If a person is on unemployment, they were previously employed and are not disabled. It might be hard to match needed work to a person's physical capabilities, but I'm sure there are things that people who are unable to do physical labor can do that we need, even if it is something as simple as answering phones. It just seems silly to let all this available labor go to waste when we're already paying for it through unemployment and we need people to do some minor jobs that the city can't afford right now.
Go back about 20 or more years and replace the word "unemployment" with the word "welfare". What kind of liberal are you anyway? I'm going to take away your ID card. ;D
Quote from: Red Arrow on July 06, 2010, 06:48:55 PM
Go back about 20 or more years and replace the word "unemployment" with the word "welfare". What kind of liberal are you anyway? I'm going to take away your ID card. ;D
I kinda thought the same thing, because I found myself sort of agreeing with him.
Quote from: Red Arrow on July 06, 2010, 06:48:55 PM
Go back about 20 or more years and replace the word "unemployment" with the word "welfare". What kind of liberal are you anyway? I'm going to take away your ID card. ;D
Cash welfare is better than letting people starve, if there really is no employment to be had and no work we can have people do, but it's not optimal.
Also, a large part of our success relative to other nations is that we have a highly mobile workforce. People will just up and move across the country for a new job. It might not be a bad idea to help the unemployed do that, if they're relocating from an area with higher than average unemployment to an area with lower than average unemployment or to any area if they have a firm job offer.
I believe in helping people achieve their full potential in the best way we can. In some cases, the best way to handle that is just giving people money (SSDI, for example). In others, it might be acting as the employer of last resort. In still other cases, that effort might be best achieved through regulation. And yes, there are even cases where getting out of the way and doing nothing other than monitoring is the best option.
I completely agree with Nathan that we could put idle brains and hands to work while they are unemployed. As it stands now, Nathan we already do pay for people to move in relation to employment with personal tax credits for relocating IIRC
Quote from: nathanm on July 06, 2010, 07:02:54 PM
Cash welfare is better than letting people starve....
I have to agree that a "let them eat cake" policy doesn't work so well. Making people work at something for their benefits should at least give them a little dignity. People unable (unable, not unwilling) to provide any self support deserve to be supported.
Standard unemployment benefits are an earned benefit. Part of the cost of employing you was to pay into the "unemployment" system. Kind of like insurance. Extended unemployment benefits are different but necessary in an economy like the present. Making a recipient do some work for the benefits makes sense. Making that person work enough hours to preclude them from searching for a new "real job" would be counterproductive.
Quote from: Red Arrow on July 06, 2010, 09:50:28 PM
I have to agree that a "let them eat cake" policy doesn't work so well. Making people work at something for their benefits should at least give them a little dignity. People unable (unable, not unwilling) to provide any self support deserve to be supported.
Standard unemployment benefits are an earned benefit. Part of the cost of employing you was to pay into the "unemployment" system. Kind of like insurance. Extended unemployment benefits are different but necessary in an economy like the present. Making a recipient do some work for the benefits makes sense. Making that person work enough hours to preclude them from searching for a new "real job" would be counterproductive.
Wow, that *almost* sounded like a liberal stance! I know better though.
;D
Quote from: Conan71 on July 06, 2010, 09:17:07 PM
As it stands now, Nathan we already do pay for people to move in relation to employment with personal tax credits for relocating IIRC
I believe it's a deduction, not a credit, so it provides less assistance to the people who most need it. Additionally, even if you can get a thousand bucks or whatever from the government next April, it doesn't do you a lot of good when you don't have the cash on hand to move or anyone to borrow it from. In any event, it's just something that would be helpful to a lot of people individually as well as the economy as a whole, although it may be unworkable in the real world.
And Red Arrow, yes, making them work 40 hours a week would be counterproductive, but 4-6 hours one or two days a week from many of the folks on extended unemployment would mow a lot of parks, clean up a lot of graffiti, and change a lot of light bulbs.
Quote from: nathanm on July 06, 2010, 05:49:30 PM
That's better than promoting and sustaining failure.
It would be nice, though, if we could capture some of the idle labor by putting those on unemployment more than a few weeks or a month to work doing useful stuff for the various levels of government two or three days a week, leaving them the rest of their time to look for a regular job. It would help ameliorate some of the pain of the budget cuts.
I bet there's enough people on unemployment here in Tulsa to get the parks mowed and graffiti abated...
Great idea! There's hope for you. Don't start paddling backwards now.
Baby steps. . .
Quote from: Hoss on July 06, 2010, 11:00:54 PM
Wow, that *almost* sounded like a liberal stance! I know better though.
;D
Learning from the French Revolution isn't necessarily liberal or conservative. It's just not being stupid. Thanks for including the "almost" though.
Quote from: Red Arrow on July 07, 2010, 07:41:29 AM
Learning from the French Revolution isn't necessarily liberal or conservative. It's just not being stupid. Thanks for including the "almost" though.
NP; I consider myself an *almost* liberal simply because I'm actually more socially liberal but fiscally I'm a conservative. I'm at odds with myself most of the time.
8)
Really, Nathan's idea is nothing new. It's essentially what Roosevelt's WPA did in the 1930's utilizing hard-core unemployed people and it left a great legacy of infrastructure. I'd far rather see us getting some tangible benefit from the UE benefits and not make them no-strings attached, or at least no more than the requirement to be "looking" for work. I can't tell you how many people show up at our office every day to "get their card punched". I'd say one in 8 or 10 actually wants a job, they just want to show they are still looking for work.
I consider myself quite fortunate I've never had to depend on UE benefits and hope I never have to.
Can you imagine the outrage. Can you imagine what would happen if this administration even suggested that people, on any from of government assistance, lift a finger?
I wish we were in a position to do something like this, but this nation has moved on. I know many talented unemployed people who would be happy to put in a few hours a week bettering their community, but I also know many who would absolutely freak out at the idea of being "forced" to work.
We've slouched forward. We are the entitled.
You are lucky. It sucks. And anyone who says people are going out on unemployment just to enjoy the time off are just way beyond ignorant.
Having said that - there really is no valid unemployment in this country as long as this offer is being made. It is just laziness and an unwillingness to do what is necessary to earn a living to support one's family. There are plenty of jobs here available for literally ANY ONE who wants to step up and take it. With complete training supplied by skilled people actually working in the industry. And a job placement program that virtually guarantees a job.
http://takeourjobs.org/
But you gotta lift a finger to help yourself...
As far as doing something productive while unemployed - well there is nothing stopping anyone from going to volunteer with the Salvation Army, Tulsa Food Bank, or any one of probably about 30 million other help organizations around the area. Just gotta be willing to lift a finger...
(Plus it IS a great networking opportunity, if approached properly.)
So Roosevelt's WPA (and his other Alphabet Soup agencies) did an interesting thing . . . they didn't just throw everybody on flatbed trucks, ship them out into the hinterlands, put shovels in their hands and put them to work building Yosemite. They were a little more fine-grained than that, and had not only labor crews, but photographers, writers, playwrights, actors, artists, accountants, engineers, etc etc all being paid to do their particular job for the government. Aside from parks and highways, the Depression-era agencies also produced a lot of pivotal art (especially photography, which traveled particularly well).
The crucial part about this is that people could easily be slotted back into their vocation when the Depression eased. An engineer in the pay of the WPA could easily be hired again by a private company. A photographer could be hired by a magazine or newspaper. If we're suggesting that a modern day IT guy be tossed on the back of the flatbed truck and handed a shovel, not only are we going to have a pissed off IT guy but we'll have a shoddily built state park.
Far better to have the IT guy be hired by the government. The gov gets necessary IT services while the IT guy gets to stay in practice, and stays ready to join the private labor force when it starts hiring again.
The CCA did pretty much exactly that...put people on a truck, gave them a shovel or hammer and said start digging or pounding.
And they built all the national park facilities we get to enjoy today, plus most of the state parks, and many local parks.
In addition to all the Alphabet Soup stuff.
They even had that farm worker program in California and elsewhere that was showcased so well in "Grapes of Wrath".
Quote from: we vs us on July 07, 2010, 02:10:00 PM
So Roosevelt's WPA (and his other Alphabet Soup agencies) did an interesting thing . . . they didn't just throw everybody on flatbed trucks, ship them out into the hinterlands, put shovels in their hands and put them to work building Yosemite. They were a little more fine-grained than that, and had not only labor crews, but photographers, writers, playwrights, actors, artists, accountants, engineers, etc etc all being paid to do their particular job for the government. Aside from parks and highways, the Depression-era agencies also produced a lot of pivotal art (especially photography, which traveled particularly well).
The crucial part about this is that people could easily be slotted back into their vocation when the Depression eased. An engineer in the pay of the WPA could easily be hired again by a private company. A photographer could be hired by a magazine or newspaper. If we're suggesting that a modern day IT guy be tossed on the back of the flatbed truck and handed a shovel, not only are we going to have a pissed off IT guy but we'll have a shoddily built state park.
Far better to have the IT guy be hired by the government. The gov gets necessary IT services while the IT guy gets to stay in practice, and stays ready to join the private labor force when it starts hiring again.
The government could very easily parcel out non-sensitive IT projects like web sites for national parks, etc.
When I was younger I used to see more of the WPA placards around town and could remember where they were. As I recall, it seems like Crow Creek stream bank stabilization was but one example of a great WPA project which has lasted for years (though it's crumbling in places now) and something makes me think that Swan Lake (nee Orcutt) had some tie to WPA. One huge difference I see between the programs that FDR started as a good response to the Depression and what we try and do today is back then, the Gov't demanded some sort of productivity in return for a check, and now we simply hand out the benefits and expect little, if anything, in return.
One problem we have with government though is administrative costs are so high for every program they dream up. People who try and point to systems such as Medicare as being paragons of government efficiency are living in a dream world. The federal government is a bloated victim of it's own rules and regulations and creates many unecessary positions to oversee compliance.
Quote from: Conan71 on July 07, 2010, 01:10:15 PM
Really, Nathan's idea is nothing new. It's essentially what Roosevelt's WPA did in the 1930's utilizing hard-core unemployed people and it left a great legacy of infrastructure.
...
I'd say one in 8 or 10 actually wants a job, they just want to show they are still looking for work.
I consider myself quite fortunate I've never had to depend on UE benefits and hope I never have to.
Yeah, it's not new at all. Unfortunately, the Glenn Beck listeners of the world consider such ideas "SOCIALIZUM!!!" :(
And to be honest, if I'd been out of work for a year, I'd probably seem like a pretty discouraged job seeker, too.
Quote from: nathanm on July 07, 2010, 11:36:11 PM
Yeah, it's not new at all. Unfortunately, the Glenn Beck listeners of the world consider such ideas "SOCIALIZUM!!!" :(
I don't think so. It's not socialism where choice exists. People can either choose to provide services to the community in exchange for extended unemployment benefits or they can choose not to receive the benefits.
Basically it's the government providing short term employment opportunities, experience, and in some cases training. The worker wins, the community wins, and the government can reduce costs on some services.
Oped from WSJ today concerning the debate over unemployment benefits...
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704862404575351301788376276.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_sections_opinion
Quote from: Gaspar on July 08, 2010, 07:18:13 AM
I don't think so. It's not socialism where choice exists. People can either choose to provide services to the community in exchange for extended unemployment benefits or they can choose not to receive the benefits.
Basically it's the government providing short term employment opportunities, experience, and in some cases training. The worker wins, the community wins, and the government can reduce costs on some services.
I agree with you, but given that the stimulus got the label, despite mainly doing a very similar thing, I don't think Cato and Heritage, nor the Tea Partiers would agree.
Quote from: nathanm on July 08, 2010, 09:41:46 AM
I agree with you, but given that the stimulus got the label, despite mainly doing a very similar thing, I don't think Cato and Heritage, nor the Tea Partiers would agree.
The stimulus was never labeled socialism. The stimulus was a pile of spending that had languished in the bottom drawer of Obey's desk for over 20 years. It was a simple example of the house taking advantage of a crisis to get things passed that they would otherwise never be able to. Now we get to live with the result.
Obamacare is what gets the label. With the appointment of the new Rationing Czar Dr. Donald Berwick, the president has solidified his intent to evolve the Obamacare system into a centrally run social system.
Berwick said it himself "competition is a major reason for our duplicative, supply-driven, fragmented care system." He also claims that he WILL ration healthcare. "The decision is not whether or not we will ration care — the decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open." Even before the silly Tea-partier notion of Death Panels he said "we must reduce the use of unwanted and ineffective medical procedures at the end of life." He was the reason the Right brought up the notion of Death Panels like Great Britons. Who knew he would end up being chosen for the job?
No the Stimulus bill was not Socialism, it was just stupid. The Obamacare bill is Socialism, there's no way now to argue that it's not.
Quote from: Gaspar on July 08, 2010, 10:30:18 AM
The stimulus was never labeled socialism.
Glenn Beck disagrees:
Quote
America, let's call a spade a spade: This package isn't meant to stimulate the economy, it's meant to reshape it.
If President Obama, Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the progressives really believe that socialism is the best way out of this mess and the best way forward for America, then make the case. Let's debate it and allow the American people to decide.
Also, I'm surprised you call $288 billion in tax cuts "stupid." I guess it's just stupid when the other guy does it?
Regarding the health care bill, it's about as far from socialism as it could possibly be. And it's essentially Lincoln Chafee's plan from 1993 (http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2010/February/23/GOP-1993-health-reform-bill.aspx). That's right, an essentially
Republican plan. But keep saying Obama is a socialist. If you repeat it enough and wish hard enough, it might actually become the truth.
If they had managed to get the public option through, it wouldn't be such an outlandish claim.
Oh, and we do ration health care right now. Today. With money. That's what capitalism does, it rations things using the free market. When prices go up due to higher demand or lower supply, the price increases, which reduces demand (for most things). The rationing thing is a complete canard.
Quote from: nathanm on July 08, 2010, 11:03:09 AM
Glenn Beck disagrees:
Also, I'm surprised you call $288 billion in tax cuts "stupid." I guess it's just stupid when the other guy does it?
Regarding the health care bill, it's about as far from socialism as it could possibly be. And it's essentially Lincoln Chafee's plan from 1993 (http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2010/February/23/GOP-1993-health-reform-bill.aspx). That's right, an essentially Republican plan. But keep saying Obama is a socialist. If you repeat it enough and wish hard enough, it might actually become the truth.
If they had managed to get the public option through, it wouldn't be such an outlandish claim.
Oh, and we do ration health care right now. Today. With money. That's what capitalism does, it rations things using the free market. When prices go up due to higher demand or lower supply, the price increases, which reduces demand (for most things). The rationing thing is a complete canard.
LOL. . . Sorry, I'm not much of a Beck (except for the beer) man, so I guess I disagree with him too. As for the token tax cuts in the bill they are stupid when you figure that the entire cost of the bill with debt service is around 3.2 Trillion dollars. This is not including the continued support necessary for the programs, bureaucracy, and projects that the bill is supposed to create.
No matter how you slice it, you cannot stimulate the economy (private industry) by growing government. The shovels for the "shovel-ready-jobs" cost ten times as much when the government buys them. :D
Quote from: Gaspar on July 08, 2010, 12:30:28 PM
LOL. . . Sorry, I'm not much of a Beck (except for the beer) man, so I guess I disagree with him too. As for the token tax cuts in the bill they are stupid when you figure that the entire cost of the bill with debt service is around 3.2 Trillion dollars. This is not including the continued support necessary for the programs, bureaucracy, and projects that the bill is supposed to create.
No matter how you slice it, you cannot stimulate the economy (private industry) by growing government. The shovels for the "shovel-ready-jobs" cost ten times as much when the government buys them. :D
Uh, the government pays private contractors to do the work, thus growing the private sector (at least temporarily). It's not like all the stimulus jobs are actually people on the government payroll.
As far as the tax cuts being token, it is/was over a third of the total bill.
Edited to add: I also don't see any new programs. I may have missed something, but it looks like it all goes to existing departments mostly to do things they already do.
Quote from: nathanm on July 08, 2010, 12:45:57 PM
Uh, the government pays private contractors to do the work, thus growing the private sector (at least temporarily). It's not like all the stimulus jobs are actually people on the government payroll.
As far as the tax cuts being token, it is/was over a third of the total bill.
Edited to add: I also don't see any new programs. I may have missed something, but it looks like it all goes to existing departments mostly to do things they already do.
Yes, you may have missed something. :D
After School Feeding Program $726million
Broadband Inventory*--Broadband Data and Deployment Grants Program $350million
Wireless and Broadband Deployment Grants Program $2.825billion
NSF Advanced Research Facilities Modernization Grants Program $200million
Waste Energy Recovery Incentive Program $500million
Grants to Institutions for Energy Sustainability and Efficiency Program $1billion
Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grants Program $3.5billion
Transportation Electrification (EISA 2007 sec. 131) Program $200million
Alternative Fueled Vehicles Pilot Grant Program $400million
Advanced Battery Manufacturing Grants Program $1billion
Advanced Battery Loan Guarantee Program $1billion
Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability (Smart Grid) Program $4.5billion
Institutional Loan Guarantee Program $500million
DOE Energy Innovative Technology Research Program $8billion
Energy Advanced Research Project Agency Program $400million
Subsidies for SBA Direct and Guaranteed Loans Program $426million
Federal Government Vehicle Fleet Replacement Program $600million
Washington, D.C. National Mall Revitalization Program $200million
Green Jobs, Health Care and Emerging Industry Training Grants Program $750million
Youth Summer Jobs Program Grants Program $1.2billion
Preventative Wellness Trust Program $3billion
Grants to replace State reductions in school funding Program $39billion
Bonuses for Local Schools meeting required education goals Program $15billion
Grants to to replace State reductions in local government services Program $25billion
Impact Aid School Construction Program $100million
Charter School Construction Program $25million
School Construction for K-12 Program $14billion
School Construction for Higher Education Institutions Program $6billion
Health Information Technology Program $2billion
Comparative Effectiveness Research Program $1.1billion
Energy Retrofit Grants for Elderly, Disablity and Sec. 8 Housing Program $2.5billion
Neighborhood stabilization grants for Non-profits Program $750million
Oh, pullleeeezzzeeee.... token tax cuts?? $288 billion??
I want some of what you are smoking!! That is some good S***, with a capital S!! (And it ain't no bar-b-que smoke!!)
That was/is the biggest single tax cut for actual taxpayers in the history of the world to date. Anywhere, anytime.
And if the debt service is 3.2 trillion on $700 billion in stimulus, what must the debt service be on;
$ 1.2 trillion in bailouts to banks and insurance companies?? (AIG with almost 200 billion just by themselves!)
$ 1.5 to 2 trillion in war debt just to get back for Daddy's embarassment?? Not to mention killing 4,000 of our kids - not even for something as substantial as private gain, but for private PRIDE!!
$ 60 billion in bailouts to GM and Chrysler??
Those who try hard to erase history are doomed to drag the rest of us back through a repetition of the BS once more.
I'm sorry, I should have said "new permanent program requiring new bureaucracy on an ongoing basis."
Almost all of that is just extra money for already existing programs, like say the extra SBA funding. Several of the things on that list are money that goes to contractors, also, like the broadband inventory. The government isn't conducting a survey of broadband speed and penetration itself, and it's administered through FCC using existing staff. At least some of the education related stuff is the same: additional funding for programs already in progress.
I use those particular examples because I'm already familiar with them.
Heiron,
And. . .we're back. Lets just rack it up as Bush's fault and continue to ignore the problem. Sweet!
;)
You forgot to get "war for oil" in there.
Nathan,
There is no such thing as a temporary government program.
Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. – Milton Friedman
Quote from: nathanm on July 08, 2010, 01:16:40 PM
I'm sorry, I should have said "new permanent program requiring new bureaucracy on an ongoing basis."
Almost all of that is just extra money for already existing programs, like say the extra SBA funding. Several of the things on that list are money that goes to contractors, also, like the broadband inventory. The government isn't conducting a survey of broadband speed and penetration itself, and it's administered through FCC using existing staff. At least some of the education related stuff is the same: additional funding for programs already in progress.
I use those particular examples because I'm already familiar with them.
You are incredibly naive. The government creates multiple new bureaucracies to oversee funding and compliance with an ever-increasing multitude of regulations. People are hired to create thousands of pages of manuals and reports which virtually no one will ever read. People are hired to manage other people, and people are hired to manage them.
Government multiplies every single time it increases what it is spending. The administrative costs of programs are always significant.
Bush is biggest part of the problem, since the biggest part of the debt was his. Even with the Obama debt so far. Obama will overtake soon, but for now, it is still Baby Bush. And yes, the big chunk of residuals we are dealing with ARE from Bush, no matter what revisionist history would want you to believe. And you full well know that.
Followed by Reagan and Bush I. Clinton was neutral on the debt - 1/2 in, 1/2 out of the game.
As far as Federal govt. employment, well here is the break down - of about 2 million who work for the government, the biggest single chunk at 652,000 is the military. Followed by Veterans Affairs at 280,000. That's 932,000 or about one half. Add in that wonderful new creation - brought to you by Baby Bush - of Homeland Security at 171,000, well you can certainly see where well over half of the big bloated government problem is, can't you?
Justice and Treasury are about another 200,000.
Education is 4,000. HUD is 9,000. So if we completely eliminate them, it wouldn't mean a thing. There is a bigger swing in census counters than that by about 35,000.
If you are going to cut, it would logically make sense to cut in the areas with the biggest possible impact, so would you recommend maybe 50% cut in military? That would take us down about 15% on employee count.
http://www.bls.gov/oco/cg/cgs041.htm
So where do you want to cut??
LOL! Not in numbers of people Heroin, in dollars. Training plus pay for a soldier is nothing compared to pay and benefits for our bureaucrats.
A strong military is 100% necessary. The department necessary for administering the grant for socially conscious puppet shows in Minnesota (yes, really from the stimulus), or the cost to operate the new GPS-equipped helicopter to hunt for radioactive rabbit droppings at the Hanford nuclear reservation in Washington state (also real). Is in my humble opinion a waste.
Quote from: Gaspar on July 09, 2010, 08:34:51 AM
LOL! Not in numbers of people Heroin, in dollars. Training plus pay for a soldier is nothing compared to pay and benefits for our bureaucrats.
I think you ought to look at where the money goes. The death and taxes graphic is a handy overview.
Also, I take it you don't think it's important to contain the radioactive contamination at Hanford at Hanford? Or that said helicopter might have other uses in homeland security?
Quote from: nathanm on July 09, 2010, 08:43:27 AM
I think you ought to look at where the money goes. The death and taxes graphic is a handy overview.
Also, I take it you don't think it's important to contain the radioactive contamination at Hanford at Hanford? Or that said helicopter might have other uses in homeland security?
Oh, I'm sure all of these programs are extreeeemly important, but are they more important than the economy? Can the puppets wait a while? Are radioactive rabbit turds more of a concern than our small businesses?
It's a question of priority. Why don't we wait until we are flush with cash to spend $1 million on bike lockers in Portland, or spend $1.5billion (with a B) to host a carbon capturing contest.
It's called Triage, and the priorities of this nation are not the same as the priorities of our president. You can't be blind to that.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on July 09, 2010, 08:15:27 AM
Bush is biggest part of the problem, since the biggest part of the debt was his. Even with the Obama debt so far. Obama will overtake soon, but for now, it is still Baby Bush. And yes, the big chunk of residuals we are dealing with ARE from Bush, no matter what revisionist history would want you to believe. And you full well know that.
Followed by Reagan and Bush I. Clinton was neutral on the debt - 1/2 in, 1/2 out of the game.
As far as Federal govt. employment, well here is the break down - of about 2 million who work for the government, the biggest single chunk at 652,000 is the military. Followed by Veterans Affairs at 280,000. That's 932,000 or about one half. Add in that wonderful new creation - brought to you by Baby Bush - of Homeland Security at 171,000, well you can certainly see where well over half of the big bloated government problem is, can't you?
Justice and Treasury are about another 200,000.
Education is 4,000. HUD is 9,000. So if we completely eliminate them, it wouldn't mean a thing. There is a bigger swing in census counters than that by about 35,000.
If you are going to cut, it would logically make sense to cut in the areas with the biggest possible impact, so would you recommend maybe 50% cut in military? That would take us down about 15% on employee count.
http://www.bls.gov/oco/cg/cgs041.htm
So where do you want to cut??
Try again, from your citation:
With about 2.0 million
civilian employees, the Federal Government,
excluding the Postal Service, is the Nation's largest employer.
http://www.bls.gov/oco/cg/cgs041.htm
This doesn't account for all the contractors doing work for the government either.
Quote from: Gaspar on July 09, 2010, 08:34:51 AM
A strong military is 100% necessary. The department necessary for administering the grant for socially conscious puppet shows in Minnesota (yes, really from the stimulus), or the cost to operate the new GPS-equipped helicopter to hunt for radioactive rabbit droppings at the Hanford nuclear reservation in Washington state (also real). Is in my humble opinion a waste.
Nice. I like it. So military bureaucracy is 100% awesome, while domestic government bureaucracy is 100% evil.
I also wonder about the wisdom in cutting the military. We have been toeing the line with North Korea (though that has been put in the back ground lately), and they have a military equal to or larger than our current military. Doesn't seem very smart to me to get them pissed at us, then cut our military in half. We have enemies, and those enemies have large militaries. Shrinking our military would only work to embolden those who would wish to do us harm.
Quote from: custosnox on July 09, 2010, 09:25:18 AM
I also wonder about the wisdom in cutting the military. We have been toeing the line with North Korea (though that has been put in the back ground lately), and they have a military equal to or larger than our current military. Doesn't seem very smart to me to get them pissed at us, then cut our military in half. We have enemies, and those enemies have large militaries. Shrinking our military would only work to embolden those who would wish to do us harm.
Unlike countries like North Korea, we have pretty effective force multipliers. That said, if you count our contractors, as we once would have, we probably have a whole lot more people working for the military than the official numbers state.
Of course, our big budgetary issue isn't people, it's the toys. We do things like maintain a Navy two or three times the size of any other nation and have a black budget bigger than the GDP of most countries.
Edited to fix a misstatement, their reserves, which I presume must consist of all the men in their country younger than 45 and active duty combined are what is between two and three times higher than ours. We have 300,000 more active duty personnel than they do.
Edited to add: But thinking about it more, what does it matter? Are they gonna ship all their guys over on boats and invade us? Barring that, the size of our military versus theirs is completely irrelevant as long as we have a few nukes pointed at Kim Jong Il's head.
Quote from: nathanm on July 09, 2010, 09:32:50 AM
Their body count is already something like three times higher than ours. Unlike countries like North Korea, we have pretty effective force multipliers. That said, if you count our contractors, as we once would have, we probably have a whole lot more people working for the military than the official numbers state.
Of course, our big budgetary issue isn't people, it's the toys. We do things like maintain a Navy two or three times the size of any other nation and have a black budget bigger than the GDP of most countries.
My point is, we have a number of countries not exactly happy with us (China, North Korea, Iran just to name a few). We currently have the strongest military in the world between the personell and the tech. Many on the left complain about this and put if forth as an excess taht should be reduced as if it is the fat of the nation doing nothing but dragging us down. The problem is that with so many nations already eager to shrug off the constraints placed on them by the US (those damn nuculear sanctions are just horrible /sarcasm) that they would be emboldened to do so if they felt that we no longer held the hand we do. We may be on top, but it's not exactly by a large margin.
That being said, I do wonder about the need to keep bases around the world. I mean honestly, do we really need to keep troops stationed in Germany and Japan?
I watched some of the air show at Tinker a few weeks ago from my GF's house in MWC and it went through my head more than once about how much it was costing the military to put on the show. I enjoyed it, but I have to say it seems a bit extravagant at times when we need to be tightening the belt.
The military is one example of a lot of top-heavy administrative waste. I believe the actual body count within the Pentagon is 28,000. There's between 1.4 and 1.5 million active duty and about 800,000 reserves, and about 580,000 civilians working for the various branches. Out of the totals there's 225,000 or so officers so about one officer for every 6 or 7 enlisted, that's top-heavy "management". I do believe the civilian count includes the kinds of jobs civvy's do at Tinker AFB maintaining planes and providing facility support and engineering.
There is no doubt waste throughout the military system. It's a victim of it's own government dysfunction as well. 200 page manuals on how to operate simple pieces of machinery, 50 pages of every bid package which lays out Davis-Bacon wage requirements, bid requirements, and other general regulatory BS which wastes tons of paper and time.
So how do you wean a country off of it's largest single budget allotment? The military provides millions upon millions of jobs at vendors, contractors, sub-contractors, and community type jobs like housing, retail, and service-oriented industries. Many very high-paying high-tech jobs are a result of military spending. I think it's seen as more acceptible because national defense is an expected service of government, not hunting radioactive rabbit poop, nor buying art work, etc. Cutting military spending is a popular chant for the anti-war crowd, but there's a whole lot more economic realities tied to that which could cause a whole lot of pain.
Quote from: custosnox on July 09, 2010, 09:40:56 AM
My point is, we have a number of countries not exactly happy with us (China, North Korea, Iran just to name a few). We currently have the strongest military in the world between the personell and the tech. Many on the left complain about this and put if forth as an excess taht should be reduced as if it is the fat of the nation doing nothing but dragging us down. The problem is that with so many nations already eager to shrug off the constraints placed on them by the US (those damn nuculear sanctions are just horrible /sarcasm) that they would be emboldened to do so if they felt that we no longer held the hand we do. We may be on top, but it's not exactly by a large margin.
That being said, I do wonder about the need to keep bases around the world. I mean honestly, do we really need to keep troops stationed in Germany and Japan?
By your logic, I think we do.
I don't think we need a massive military to wield significant global power. We do need a lot of high tech stuff, but we don't need one of the largest standing armies in the world. I find it interesting that most of the Founding Fathers thought that standing armies were a bad thing yet here we are about two and a quarter centuries on and we have one of the largest standing armies in the world. If nobody's trying to invade us, we don't need it, beyond a small core of active duty to fulfill our treaty obligations and provide credible deterrence, as well as a relatively large number of reservists who have enough training using our modern weaponry to be immediately effective in battle should we need more.
And Conan, I agree that it's not something that can just be chopped in half overnight (heck, I don't even know for sure that there's that much waste and excess to cut!). The cuts in the 90s worked out kinda sorta reasonably well because the economy was expanding.
At least Conan got it. That is civilian employees. Well over half are military, veterans, and homeland lack of security.
So, now we know for sure that Gassy never reads the references....just goes to the canned Rupert Murdoch script.
IF enlightenment is desired, then do the research on government pay grades. Then go to military pay grades. They are only somewhat skewed from each other.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on July 09, 2010, 10:06:24 AM
At least Conan got it. That is civilian employees. Well over half are military, veterans, and homeland lack of security.
So, now we know for sure that Gassy never reads the references....just goes to the canned Rupert Murdoch script.
Also in my searching though, I came across an article showing the Obama Admin intends to add about 141,000 to the Federal
dole er payroll this year. Only about 30K shy of Homeland Insecurity. Still not sure what all departments will get the new
bureaucrats employees.
Big chunk of that was census...about 45,000-ish. And then there are other sources who are saying he is planning on cutting that same number (I saw those claims about 2 months ago), so I think the propaganda machines for both sides are in full flail. Will probably have to wait until next year to know for sure. 2009 was a net loss of fed employment, if memory serves, though.
You got it right the first time - bureaucrats. By definition. Well, except for the weather service and national parks service.
Quote from: nathanm on July 09, 2010, 09:57:19 AM
By your logic, I think we do.
I don't think we need a massive military to wield significant global power. We do need a lot of high tech stuff, but we don't need one of the largest standing armies in the world. I find it interesting that most of the Founding Fathers thought that standing armies were a bad thing yet here we are about two and a quarter centuries on and we have one of the largest standing armies in the world. If nobody's trying to invade us, we don't need it, beyond a small core of active duty to fulfill our treaty obligations and provide credible deterrence, as well as a relatively large number of reservists who have enough training using our modern weaponry to be immediately effective in battle should we need more.
And Conan, I agree that it's not something that can just be chopped in half overnight (heck, I don't even know for sure that there's that much waste and excess to cut!). The cuts in the 90s worked out kinda sorta reasonably well because the economy was expanding.
When I say around the world, I mean in non hostile countries. Thinking more on it though, I can see the stratigic advantage of being able to deploy troops in friendly area's closer to hostiles territory if the situation demanded.
You say if nobody is infading than we don't need it. How can you be so sure? With the standing militaries around the world, all it would take is for us to lower our guard for a moment for them to strike. We still might come out on top, but at what cost? It is a matter of security. Of course we could stop stepping on toes and keep to our own little corner of the world, but there is so much more too it than that. The issue sits on a very dangerous precipice (sp?) that threatens much in whichever direction it may fall. For now the balance leans towards excess in the name of security. But how far can we lean in that direction before we colapse under the weight of our own safegaurds? If we pull back, how many threats come closer to reality, from within and without? Indeed, it is a task that I do not envy those who have to decide it's fate.
Quick intervention here - check the new posts. I put on some information - Enlightenment and education - that might be of interest.
Completely and absolutely non-political and strictly public service announcement type post.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on July 09, 2010, 10:18:23 AM
Big chunk of that was census...about 45,000-ish. And then there are other sources who are saying he is planning on cutting that same number (I saw those claims about 2 months ago), so I think the propaganda machines for both sides are in full flail. Will probably have to wait until next year to know for sure. 2009 was a net loss of fed employment, if memory serves, though.
You got it right the first time - bureaucrats. By definition. Well, except for the weather service and national parks service.
No, these were permanent positions referenced in the article I found. FWIW, the census jobs numbered about 225,000.
Whew! Much higher than I thought...
Got some relatives that did that for a few weeks. Every little bit helps money wise.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on July 09, 2010, 10:57:13 AM
Whew! Much higher than I thought...
Got some relatives that did that for a few weeks. Every little bit helps money wise.
I was going to, but my background popped up with a flag. I really hate having the same name (middle initial and all) as a felon living in OKC. At that point it just became a really big hassle for a very short term job.