1
google searches proves its working, too

2
the same MarK Zandi who thinks the lousy employment data "solidifies the idea the economic recovery is going to remain in tack?"

3 Barry was a guest lecturer. He's an expert on how stuff works on paper and not in the real world

4 True voodoo economics.

5

according to Obama's own figures, of each dollar in spending, and it turned out to be... just around 0.8.

 

So if they hadn't borrowed the money at a higher interest rate than 0.8%, what would the job return rate, or jobs saved, have been if they didn't have to raise taxes to pay back the money that they borrowed for all that Stimulation? 

6

I really get tired of hearing about Mark Zandi for the following reasons.

1. He was and economic advisor on McCains failed campaign which somehow is now a badge of honor in the media.

2. He works for f*cking Moody's. The same f*cking Moody's who gave all of the worthless Mortgage Backed Securities a AAA rating.

 

7
yeah, QM, a caller yesterday remarked about how everything Obama is doing works...in theory.

Everything the Obama admin is theoretical; none of it is based on practical experience. Because None of the admin has any practical experience, just the theoretical stuff they learned in college.

8 First of all, a $100 million Presidio Parkway? Does that take me from the 19th Avenue traffic jam to the Golden Gate traffic jam? Must be, because redoing 19th Ave into a parkway would take billions.

9
What else do you expect when you have a college faculty running the Executive branch of our republic?

10 You got to spend money to lose money.

11
I think a couple of weeks ago Geoff (was it you, Geoff?)

It was. And as we pointed out yesterday, Romer admitted that her GDP-to-jobs correlation was completely off. So not only was her multiplier wrong, but she erred in translating the (incorrect) GDP into jobs. As did the CBO last month.

12 Hey no worries.  Ogabe is going to decree a tax holiday, didn't you hear?  Now that is the kind of post partisanship we were looking for....

13 So if they hadn't borrowed the money at a higher interest rate than 0.8%, what would the job return rate, or jobs saved, have been if they didn't have to raise taxes to pay back the money that they borrowed for all that Stimulation?

Wrong idea Speller.

Spend $1 to get $0.80 results in a -20% return on your investment (ROI).  Borrowing the money with interest just makes the ROI go more negative.

And don't get me started on compound interest.

14 If all that stimulus flying around is creating or saving GDP with its Keynesian multiple of >1.0, then the rest of the economy is cratering even more than we think.

15
You may wonder why the Stimulus was weighted so heavily toward unemployment benefits and Medicare payments. It's pretty much Zandi's fault - he told Congress that those spending categories had much higher multipliers than tax cuts.

He used the same crappy multipliers when he recently claimed that Obama's policies had saved over 8 million jobs.

16

I never could remember which was the numerator and which was the denominator. Still, the "multiplier" never had a chance. Credit Suisse ecomomists calculated that about $200 billion of the $800 odd billion was actually stimulas. FWIW I'd consider them a neutral scorekeeper. Sooo...one has a pretty tremendous headwind when he or she has to use $800 billion as the starting point when the real number is 25% of that. I'd offer it is also a fine example of the friction that Keynesians fail to see occurs whenever the government sticks it's pointy head into the game.

 

17 Phase 1: Spend a trillion dollars
Phase 2: ???
Phase 3: Profit!

18

Ace -

Don't forget the jobs created and/or saved tanning all those Hobo-Skins, and recycling their shopping carts!

19 IIRC - DoD only allows a Technology Transfer rate of return of 1.2 on investments in applied development of proven science. That is the area in which the scientists and engineers meet - that is where the real payoff can be - the rest is less.

20 I am like the lebron James of job creation!

21 I made a liberal friend of mine very upset when I pointed out the Military Industrial Complex has paid for more college educations than the Dept. of Ed.

That fighter that costs $40 million?   It has about $350,000¹ worth of raw materials in it.

The rest is going to other costs such as salaries which are then used to buy stuff, pay mortgages, college educations for the kids of the employees, et cetera.

_{1 I made that stat up, but Dave at Garfield Ridge would agree with me.  maybe.}

22
Anyone at CBO or on Obama's CEA who submitted work product done on the taxpayers' dime using these ridiculous multipliers should be prosecuted.

We need something akin to the UCMJ for federal civilian employees.

23 Look guys, I have been great for gun and gold sales. So fuck off let me enjoy my vacations.

24 I figure we'll be out of Bush' rececssion if we pave all of our roads two or three more times. And cart paths. Can't forget to pave the cart paths.

25 I certainly feel stimulated.

26 Hey wingnuts!!  I told you Presidentin' is hard 'n shit!  Let's see you do better.

It's been a tough week, I put in at least 15-20 hours.  Think I'm going to Camp David...They do have golf courses there, don't they?

27

I wrote something similar today.  Many fun econ-links.

http://tinyurl.com/294jh7s

28 No, no, no. This Keynesianism didn't work this time because they didn't go far enough with it. The same reason communism hasn't worked yet.

29 Apparetly they're unfamiliar with the concept of diminishing returns.  It may well be that at some level of government spending you'd get 50% more overall economic activity in a year than it spent, but we are well above that (which we now know beyond any reasonable doubt from the total failure of the stimulus).  It doesn't matter anyway, since from a government perspective, in order to justify the expense of the "investment", it needs to generate such a level of activity as the resulting tax revenues pay for it.

Which happens, like never.

30 9  What else do you expect when you have a college faculty running the Executive branch of our republic?

Nothing, except only chaos.

Doesn't help that some of this garbage is being done on purpose, methinks, to radically expand the role of government...forever.

31 100 billion turtles created saved protected.

32 +"Which would be like a 300% multiplier"

33 How The Stimulus Works On Paper But Nowhere Else

Hey, hey don't bring me into this shit.

34 These smart people sure are dumb.

35 How much does it cost to deliver $1 of government spending?  $1.30?  What's the overhead of the bureaucracy that writes, administers, regulates, brings the money in, allocates it, sends it back out?  Is that overhead the real stimulus (because it seems that the government is the only thing that's been stimulated)?

36 Money well spent.

37

By The Way: Donations to this site have a 2.2 economic multiplier. Every dollar you donate fuels an additional 1.2 dollars of economic activity in the Extreme Hobo Sports, discount vodka, and Thai tranny Chakra Adjustment industries.

It's pretty much like you're making a 20% profit on every dollar donated. That's free money right in your pocket, yo!

Ha!

38 Wake me up when "persons touched" means that I get to "touch" a Congress Critter with a 2x4.

39
Our economic policy is modeled after Amtrak.

40 >>"they assume (and claim that this is well-established) that if they spend $1 in government money on stimulus, they will get out of that $1.50 in economic activity. "

For the Nth time, this assumption is ridiculous on its face, and practically risible.

If all you had to do to stimulate the economy was have the gov't spend money, then there would never (indeed could never) be such a thing as a recession.

If this Keynesian fantasy were true, then countries like France would be economic powerhouses.   Analogously, if gov't spending is good for the economy, then California should have the strongest economy in the country.

41 Apparetly they're unfamiliar with the concept of diminishing returns.

Look, in their world everything is constant and static.  Anything else is too complicated.

Keynesian economists are people for whom geometric series is the pinnacle of mathematics.

42 "they assume (and claim that this is well-established) that if they spend $1 in government money on stimulus, they will get out of that $1.50 in economic activity. "

It's perpetual economic motion!

43 I'm going to show you how to get freeeeeeeee money!

44
If unemployment is a good thing, Michiganders & Nevadans must be in Heaven.

45 40 >>"they assume (and claim that this is well-established) that if they spend $1 in government money on stimulus, they will get out of that $1.50 in economic activity. "

For the Nth time, this assumption is ridiculous on its face, and practically risible.

If all you had to do to stimulate the economy was have the gov't spend money, then there would never (indeed could never) be such a thing as a recession.

If this Keynesian fantasy were true, then countries like France would be economic powerhouses.   Analogously, if gov't spending is good for the economy, then California should have the strongest economy in the country.
Posted by: looking closely at September 03, 2010 01:18 PM (PwGfd)   Even more so, if every dollar of gov't spending adds 1.50, even when it's deficit spending.  Why stop at a trillion?  Why not spend 5 trillion, 10 trillion, 20 trillion?  Kobe beef in every pot, and a bentley in every McMansion garage is what I say.  This Keynesian stuff is top shit.

46
Jennifer Granholm must be in line for the next Nobel Prize for economics because clearly she is an economic fucking genius.

47 I admit to being an Islamophobe.  Why would I support someone who wants to kill me?

48

Of course, a big part of why the stimulus did so little stimulating is because major hunks of it disappeared into private accounts.  Mainly those of well connected crooks. 

It also doesn't help that nearly every recipient of those funds wasted them in an absurd and profligate manner, including the companies that did the hand full of actual infrastructure projects.  The amount of absurd misdirection of funds, the utterly inappropriate priorites, is sickening - and that's just what I see in my little corner of the world.

 

49 Why not spend 15 quadrillion if it will pay for itself in unicorn ready projects?

50 #40  If this Keynesian fantasy were true, then countries like France would be economic powerhouses.   Analogously, if gov't spending is good for the economy, then California should have the strongest economy in the country.

That's because they didn't have me at the helm! 

/About Cali, um, uhr, um...Bush's fault!

51 The multiplier is derived from something called the Marginal Propensity to Consume. The idea being, if you get a dollar, and spend 60 cents of it, then your MPC is 0.6. You then do a few mathematical tricks and you get a multiplier.

This is a great idea in theory. But the theory also assumes that you don't already have a massively overextended government.

52 Milton the Friedman is the one they should follow.

53 If all you had to do to stimulate the economy was have the gov't spend money, then there would never (indeed could never) be such a thing as a recession.

If this Keynesian fantasy were true, then countries like France would be economic powerhouses.   Analogously, if gov't spending is good for the economy, then California should have the strongest economy in the country.

To be fair to Keynes...<\Cap'n Ed>

...this was all about the short term ("In the long term, we are all dead." John M. Keynes).  Even he knew that running massive debts would have other negative economic effects, not the least of which is service on the debt.

But he argued that in bad times, you were supposed to do this and then pay off the debt in good times.

Liberals love the first part, they hate the second part.

In any case, Keynesian stimulus is a complete and total failure because it isn't supposed to be a long-term solution to anything.  If it didn't work already, all we are left with are the negatives.

54

I'm going to show you how to get freeeeeeeee money!

Shoot, that's easy.  Quit your job, have 6 kids out of wedlock, live with a dead beat, gain 100 pounds, smoke like a chimney, drink like a fish, Buy sugar and carbs at Wal Mart, buy 50 lottery tickets a week and watch reality TV all day.

55 On the "new jobs" issue, was listening to a radio interview where they were talking about creating green jobs and it was just a matter of how it was defined by the government.  An existing job, such as forest ranger is now a new green job but it gets even better, a longshore job would be classified as green depending on what is being offloaded.  If it is solar panels, Green Job!  If it is oil drilling equipment, not so green job :-( 

56 If, as TallDave references, gov't spending is already 45% of GDP (holy shit!), then don't they eventually have to tax 80% of that 55%? Keynesians do have to pay for their programs, right?

57 I admit to being an Islamophobe. Why would I support someone who wants to kill me? Posted by: katya, the evangelical Christian at September 03, 2010 01:22 PM (WF5bO) So your a Republican then?

58

It's pretty much like you're making a 20% profit on every dollar donated. That's free money right in your pocket, yo!

And people said I was wasting my time online.  I knew if I hung in long enough I'd stumble onto a top notch money making scheme.

59 Tapper: "Any regrets about calling this "Recovery Summer"?

Clean, Articulate Prez'nit: "I....iyaiyaiyaiyaiyay...ummm... I don't regret... errrrr... save, create... errrr....right direction... ummm... we've just got to speed things up... uuuuhhhh... I am going to hold a press conference next week, now stop asking me questions.

(link to HA)

60 Farmer Joe, Thanks... I should listen to you Morons sometimes.

61

Slight-OT: The President was asked today about whether he regrets calling this a "recovery summer":

“In the month I took office, we were losing 750,000 jobs a month,” the president said. “This morning, new figures show the economy produced 67,000 private sector jobs in August, the eighth consecutive month of private job growth.  Additionally, the numbers for July were revised upward to 107,000. Now that's positive news, and it reflects the steps we've already taken to break the back of this recession.”

he president refrained from mentioning the net job loss of 54,000 jobs, or ever that August brought a net job loss.

62

As a sequel to the ad you haven't yet created, I suggest you collect up all these media claims about "Funemployment" and "What's Good About Rising Unemployment" and "America is Back!" and end with the same text.

Ya know, I keep reading your take on how ads should be created.

So do it!

You have the resources. Make some ads. You can do it, ace.

63

I admit to being an Islamophobe. Why would I support someone who wants to kill me?
Posted by: katya, the evangelical Christian at September 03, 2010 01:22 PM (WF5bO)

So your a Republican white, racist tea partier then?

FIFY

64 59 beat me to it.

65 Engage the Mulitplier.

66 1. Spend $1 trillion
2. GOP landslide
3. Profit!!

67
This skit shows the logic behind Obama's economic policies.

"All the time our customers ask, 'How do you make money doing this?' The answer is simple: volume."

68 The problem is you reich-wingers don't understand economics. So what if we get a negative return of negative 20% on every dollar spent? We'll make it up on volume, man.

69 I am afraid it is worse then you think. This does not even work on paper. Only Access is capable of these contortions.

70 I admit to being an Islamophobe. Why would I support someone who wants to kill me? Posted by: katya, the evangelical Christian at September 03, 2010 01:22 PM (WF5bO) So your a Republican white, racist tea partier then? FIFY Posted by: katya, the evangelical Christian at September 03, 2010 01:28 PM (WF5bO) OK that works for me also

71 60 Farmer Joe,

Thanks... I should listen to you Morons sometimes.

My pleasure. I need to use my econ degree for SOMETHING, lord knows.

72

Plus, some House Dems are worried Obama will cave on tax-cuts:

“If he doesn’t do something immediately, our members will be livid,” says a House Democratic aide. “And when there’s fear of a bloodbath, it’s never too early to start the blame game.”

73
The democrats actually believe their welfare state, redistributionist policies are healthy.

74 This is a great idea in theory. But the theory also assumes that you don't already have a massively overextended government.

Posted by: Farmer Joe at September 03, 2010 01:23 PM (z4es9)

Exactly, the only way the multiplier works is if the government had the original $1 sitting in the bank somewhere. If they don't you have to deduct the $1 they took out of the economy in order to put it back in the economy less government overhead.

75 Homogeneous? We beg to differ. But we really do like the welfare checks, o kaffir dogs! More, please!

76 The democrats actually believe their welfare state, redistributionist policies are healthy. Posted by: Lemon Kitten at September 03, 2010 01:30 PM (0fzsA) I hope they are all feeling that way when they are sitting on their useless asses at home after they all get voted out of office in November

77 Seriously, watch that clip of Obama attempting to answer the "Recovery Summer" question.  It's like watching something with Max Headroom from the 80s.

78 Somebody needs to post the "Money Momentum" skit from the old Kids in the Hall show.

79
"We are not going to give you change you do not want. If you come to us with a hundred-dollar bill, we're not going to give you two thousand nickels...unless that meets your particular change needs."

80 Exactly, the only way the multiplier works is if the government had the original $1 sitting in the bank somewhere. If they don't you have to deduct the $1 they took out of the economy in order to put it back in the economy less government overhead.

Keynes thought that governments should run surpluses in boom times, which would have the effect of paying for the money you spent during recessions, and also slowing the rate of growth, which would tend to make the recessions less deep to begin with. Somehow that part of the Keynesian program never seems to get implemented.

81 The multiplier is derived from something called the Marginal Propensity to Consume. The idea being, if you get a dollar, and spend 60 cents of it, then your MPC is 0.6.

Conceptually, the multiplier effect is quite simple, but it relies on money velocity (the number of times a dollar coursing through the economy is spent in time X) and that the spending of the dollar in question stirs production.

Government A) Spends its revenues very slowly, due to inefficiency, and B) Does nothing to spur production, in fact dampening it. (Crop subsidies, anyone?)

Both velocity and productivity are efficient in the bailiwick of the private sector, which just happens to be where the money that government spends comes from, thereby having a secondary dampening effect in opportunity cost, as well.

82 As a sequel to the ad you haven't yet created, I suggest you collect up all these media claims about "Funemployment" and "What's Good About Rising Unemployment" and "America is Back!" and end with the same text.

Replace this billboard with Newspeak's "America's Back!" cover.

83 Imagine the possibilities....what if this is "as good as it gets."

We can't afford a recovery. I'm not kidding.

Let's just say that we were able to cut our unemployment rate in 1/2. Demand for everything would rise. Commodities. Inflation would take hold. The Federal Reserve would start hiking rates to slow down the overheating economy. But you see we have a major problem. Half of our debt, 14 trillion, has to get refinanced each year now with drastically higher rates. That 500 billion in interest suddenly rises to 1 trillion each year. Add in Fannie and Freddy's liabilities at 7 trillion and SS borrowing. This gets ugly fast. Forget GDP v debt comparisons...they are meaningless. We have dug a hole that we cannot possibly climb out of.

So the truth is, as crazy as it sounds, I'm not sure we want a drastic cut in unemployment...even though I am one of those ones...

84 Stimulate THIS muddertrucker!!!111!11111eleventy11!!!!111

85

So your a Republican white, racist tea partier then?

I forgot redneck.  But that's redundant.

86 Let me here so if you subtract $1 from the economy and then spend it on the Ted Kennedy  Boaters Safety Institute, that creates wealth. Why not go to Communism? That would create unfathomable wealth..

87 This is what is known as "painting yourself into a corner". Or "hoist on his own petard". I heard the same crap out of Romer on her leave-taking speech. They know full well the ARRA thing was a huge failure; the evidence is too obvious to ignore even for such dedicated Democrats as they. And yet they are trapped by their own rhetoric. Any walkback or hedging now will only draw attention to what a fuck-up the whole thing has been. There might be some half-assed initiative to pass a stimulus without calling it a "stimulus": some sort of tax holiday or some such. But being Democrats, they will cripple it to such an extent that it serves no useful purpose and costs more money than it saves. I think the Dems are simply going to tread water as best they can until the bloodletting of the midterms is over -- their thinking being that if the GOP does run the table, then the economy becomes their problem to deal with. Sure, Obama will veto any substantial reform that comes across his desk, but the Donks will still be able to blame the GOP for not doing any better than the people they replaced. If nothing else, the lest decade or so should disabuse anyone that still thought that economics was a science rather than a (not very well understood) branch of psychology.

88 MFNBC to the rescue!


Employers hire more workers than expected
_{Private employers add 67,000 jobs in August; jobless rate rises}

There's your next headline, Ace. I particularly like how they get push of and fine print the "jobless rate rises" part.

89 #51: It's just 1/(1-MPC).  That's the simplest model from geometric series.  Of course, the geometric series model assumes that the dollar of spending has been passed through the economy and changed hands an infinite number of times in the time frame you're talking about.

If you add more error terms and take other things into account, then it's less.  The multiplier doesn't consider a lot of effects that stimulus has, in particular government spending versions of stimulus.

90

President Obama is serious about the economy:

“His advisers described his attentiveness – noting, for example, that he discussed the economy with New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg (I) for 15 minutes before golfing – but got little traction."

Wow, an entire 15 minutes!

91

I hope they are all feeling that way when they are sitting on their useless asses at home after they all get voted out of office in November Posted by: nevergiveup

Sadly, they likely all become high paid DC lobbyists.
Once at the government trough, always at the gov trough.

92

It's perpetual economic motion!

That. On a t-shirt. Incorporating the infamous Obama "O". As in zero...

3. Profit!

93 Taken to extremes (as credential cretin Paul Krugman sometimes seems to) this results in the absurd result that we should just spend $10 trillion in stimulus because then we'll wind up with an additional $5 trillion in "extra" money, magically "multiplied" out from the initial investment.

If there are projects that are publicly known to offer an immediate 150% to 200% ROI, wouldn't the states, localities, or even businesses already be pursuing them?

All I've seen Porkulus paying for are paving jobs, signs, and bureaucrats getting pay raises. Sure, getting the roads paved is nice - but why is the money going all the way to the feds, then back down to the states with all the inefficiencies that brings?

94

"So your a Republican then?"

For fuck sake, would you please learn the fucking difference between you're and your?

 

As for the stimulus, Media Matters in now getting on Fox for not admitting that the "expert consensus" is that the stimulus prevented the unemployment rate from being even higher.   Because hey, preventing the unemployment rate from being a wee bit higher is totally worth spending a trillion dollars and mortgaging our future and the future of our children.  Furthermore, it is fucking impossible to prove a negative.  All we know is that the White House promised the unemployment rate would not go above 8% and it has been higher than that for almost the entirety of the Obama administration.  It has been over 9% for 16 months and over 9.5% for 13.  Arguing that the stimulus was effective is a Helen Kelleresque level of political tonedeafness. 

 

In an unrelated news, Erick Erickson is actually arguing on RedState.com that he will no longer support O'Donnell because of the gay affair rumor, but that he would prefer Coons to win against Castle.  That is how fucking stupid the Tea Party I Hate RINOs crowd has become. 

95

You know what these #s mean to me?   Not an effin thing, because I don't have a damn job, and if this crap continues, I may not have one for a while.   Oh, other than spending all damn day looking for a job.    That is my full time job right now.   Trying desperately to find a job so I don't lose everything I've worked for my entire life.

Oh, and I hate those m'frs.   That's another thing I'm working on.   Trying to quell the massive hate I have for those bastards, so it doesn't consume me.    Believe me, that's the hardest job.

96 >>>You have the resources. Make some ads. You can do it, ace. No i don't. I don't know how to do video editing or anything.

97 It's just 1/(1-MPC).

Right. I couldn't remember if it was that or 1/MPC. At least that's the undergrad version. I want to think the real version has some fancy calculus thing in the denominator.

98 21 - Seems likely enough in my experience. I was funded off a DoE grant for a reasonable chunk of my time in grad school. The M.-I. complex is actually pretty good about investing in research.

99

“His advisers described his attentiveness – noting, for example, that he discussed the economy with New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg (I) for 15 minutes before golfing – but got little traction."

15 minutes with a mayor is supposed to show attentiveness to an issue? Wow, talk about not having much material to spin.

100

MFNBC to the rescue!

I like Ann Coulters new name for MSNBC "North Korean T.V."

101 There is a 10 hour video series that explains "capitalism". This system should be tried someday.

102 We can't afford a recovery. I'm not kidding.

Let's just say that we were able to cut our unemployment rate in 1/2. Demand for everything would rise. Commodities. Inflation would take hold. The Federal Reserve would start hiking rates to slow down the overheating economy. But you see we have a major problem. Half of our debt, 14 trillion, has to get refinanced each year now with drastically higher rates. That 500 billion in interest suddenly rises to 1 trillion each year. Add in Fannie and Freddy's liabilities at 7 trillion and SS borrowing. This gets ugly fast. Forget GDP v debt comparisons...they are meaningless. We have dug a hole that we cannot possibly climb out of.

We can get out of this:  Cut the government more than we cut government revenues.

If we eliminate those things that government should not be doing, and cut taxes sufficiently that we A)spur growth and B) run huge government surpluses, we can do it.

I would suggest, in the short term, a government budget of $1T.  Eliminate Soc Sec, Medicare, Medicaid, Energy, Education, Interior, Labor, etc.  That leaves Defense and dog food for Bo.

Cut taxes massively, such that the revenues to the government amount to say 1.2T.  The tax cuts spur growth, and with the same budget, revennues grow to say 1.5T.  Two years and we have a 500B reduction in our debt.  That is the only way we are going to grow out of this, and it will take many years, with us eventually reducing federal tax drag on the economy to very little as a % of GDP.

103 If you add more error terms and take other things into account, then it's less.  The multiplier doesn't consider a lot of effects that stimulus has, in particular government spending versions of stimulus.

Posted by: AmishDude at September 03, 2010 01:37 PM (3wPsb)

Ok, so your business? I'm going to take some money out of it.But then I'm going to give your money to some assistant to the director of entertainment in your state's education department. 

Now, here is where the magic happens. He'll use your dollars to buy good from you. You see...profit for everyone! I don't know why those stupid Republican never though of this!!!

You'd think you people would be grateful!

104 No i don't. I don't know how to do video editing or anything.

Posted by: ace at September 03, 2010 01:38 PM (QbA6l)

There is no "I" (or in this case, "You") in team, Ace.

Hmmm... you've got a blog full of talented, unemployed commenters. While I've got the software, I ain't got the skillz, or I'd volunteer.

105 No i, [ace] don't. I don't know how to do video editing or anything.

Truce?

106
Take it easy, Bob.

If it wasn't for the "Tea Party I Hate RINOs crowd" the Republicans would only have 40 senators in the Senate, we'd have no chance whatsoever of taking over the House, and the Republicans wouldn't be acting/talking nearly as conservative.

The Tea  Party crowd has whipped the GOP into fighting condition, Bob. You should be a little more grateful.

107 In an unrelated news, Erick Erickson is actually arguing on RedState.com that he will no longer support O'Donnell because of the gay affair rumor, but that he would prefer Coons to win against Castle.  That is how fucking stupid the Tea Party I Hate RINOs crowd has become.

It's Redstate.  They are batshit insane over there.  There was a recommended post up there from a guy who thought it was good Murkowski was going third party because of how rightwing Miller was.

Redstate is completely outside the realm of rational thought.

108

No i don't. I don't know how to do video editing or anything.

Oh, and someone like Maet doesn't? Like I said, resources...

109 Ace, the RNC won't make those ads.  They are a good idea, thus not something the RNC is capable off.

YOU HEAR THAT RNC?  YOU ARE A BUNCH OF TUMBLING DICKWEEDS !!!!

110
The Republican was Dead until the Tea Party crowd came along, Bob.

Don't ever forget that.

111 I can't get that song out of my head. Fuck you.

112 No i don't. I don't know how to do video editing or anything. Posted by: ace at September 03, 2010 01:38 PM

Thirsty seconds of flaming skull image with a Eugene Robinson voice-over (any Eugene Robinson voice-over) should destroy the Democrats for the next, oh, 1763 years or so.

113 #90 Wow, an entire 15 minutes!

He had a tee-time to meet, silly.  He's been working so hard to fix the economy and everything that he needed to take a golfing-break.

Would you be so cold and callous to deny the God-King Himself relaxation? 

114 Ace. Delegate.

115 The M.-I. complex is actually pretty good about investing in research. DARPA being the most obvious example, but also the National Labs: Los Alamos, Fermilab, Ames, Argonne, etc. The national labs operate nominally under the DOE, but don't kid yourself about where most of the funding (and lots of the expertise) comes from. USAMRIID runs a world-class infectious-disease center at Fort Detrick in MD, and the Air Force has dumped billions into aerospace R&D at Groom Lake in Nevada.

116 I'm not sure HOW you can come up with those multipliers and actually state them with a straight face. They fly in the face of established economics and common-sense.

As pointed out, it's absurd to say each dollar of gov't spending results in a 1.x return. If that were the case, communism would work because you could confiscate all income and spend it via the government.

Maybe what they meant was 'for each dollar we spend, we're going to PRINT another .57 cents'

These people are just making numbers up out of thin air. Why 1.57 or 2; why not just a million-billion-trillion? That number makes JUST as much sense.

It's impossible for me to comprehend how this president and congress don't have an approval rating of ZERO.

117 Does this mean that we have to pay unemployment benefits to those useless excuses for Congresscritters when we toss them out on their asses in Nov?

118 I want to think the real version has some fancy calculus thing in the denominator.

Posted by: Farmer Joe at September 03, 2010 01:39 PM (z4es9)

"Man, I love partial derivatives"--actually said by one of my econ profs.  I think he later masturbated to death.

119
So MSNBC is now lying on behalf of their political regime(D).

Welcome to Argentina!

120 Thirsty seconds of flaming skull image with a Eugene Robinson voice-over (any Eugene Robinson voice-over) should destroy the Democrats for the next, oh, 1763 years or so.

Posted by: MrScribbler at September 03, 2010 01:43 PM (Ulu3i)

heck, if someone else had the raw materials (voiceover mp3 or something) I could probably manage the rest. Again, I got no real skillz, but I've got software and time.

121 "Man, I love partial derivatives"--actually said by one of my econ profs.  I think he later masturbated to death.

You must have been in school with me. My profs said things like that all the time. People think scientists are huge nerds, but economists really give them a run for their money (SWIDT?)

122

All of this is rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.  The long term deficits that are baked into government spending such as Medicare, Medicaid, SS not to mention the interest we continue to accrue every month on the money we borrow to pay our current bills will lead us to a meltdown.

It's not a question of if and it's a question of when.  We are totally porked.

123 Does this mean that we have to pay unemployment benefits to those useless excuses for Congresscritters when we toss them out on their asses in Nov? Posted by: Marybeth at September 03, 2010 01:43 PM

It's called pensions. Oh, and office expenses, free postage and a billion other taxpayer-funded perks. For life.

Not to mention book deals, "consultant" jobs, regular spots on Fucks News's "panel of fair & balanced experts" (if you're a Dem, that is), and so on....

124 It's not a question of if and it's a question of when.  We are totally porked.

No worries. It'll all get sorted out in the war.

125 Their "multipliers" ignore another economic model called the Velocity of Money.  Readers digest condensed version is how fast a dollar turns hands in an economy.

In a mythical country, called Fixeruppistan, you make a dollar for wages..... you spend that dollar on a new radio...... the radio company spends that dollar on fuel for shipping..... Exxon spends that dollar for aluminum piping..... Alcoa spends that dollar to buy a new aluminum forge. Five transactions in a year. That one dollar contributed $5 to the GDP of Fixeruppistan.

In another mythical country called Krugmanaghetto...... you make a dollar for wages, that dollar gets taxed and is directly given to a car company on the ropes. That car company buys steel with the dollar. The steel company buys smelting fuel from Exxon. Exxon uses that dollar to pay for an energy tax. Again.... five transactions, but the GDP is only $3 because of taxation.

Unless the govt is using tax dollars buying paper clips or weapons systems, govt spending doesnt not contribute to GDP. The higher the levels of taxation, the slower the velocity of money, the lower the GDP.

Their multipliers simply ignore the economic cost of taking the original dollar out of the economy in the first place.

126 Cut taxes massively, such that the revenues to the government amount to say 1.2T.  The tax cuts spur growth, and with the same budget, revennues grow to say 1.5T.  Two years and we have a 500B reduction in our debt.  That is the only way we are going to grow out of this, and it will take many years, with us eventually reducing federal tax drag on the economy to very little as a % of GDP.

I agree Herr on many fronts. Government is the problem and the Fed an equally disturbing problem. But they aren't going to go away unless we unite and make them go away. They are the elite and the powerful and they will not go easily into the good night. They sure as hell won't go away if we spend all of our time distracted with R and D politics. This problem is everyone's problem. It doesn't have a damn thing to do with politics anymore. It is economic survival and talking about who did what is useless and not even particularly entertaining nor useful.

127

Look, ace, we are not losers. Just because you have no skills at creating an Ad, doesn't mean there are not a whole lot of people who would help you.

Which is why we are what we are. If no one does it, or help us, then we do it ourselves.

Go for it.

128 Chain the media to the Democrats and the Democrats to the media and let 'em both drown from the others weight.

Ace, I think this is a fantastic idea: it's true, it will work, BUT- the RNC et al will not do it or they will not do it right. We are going to have to do it ourselves, and it wil be up to us to shove it down peoples throats.

129
You must have been in school with me. My profs said things like that all the time. People think scientists are huge nerds, but economists really give them a run for their money (SWIDT?)

I went in the late 80s.  We'd start talking about MPC, MPS, Aggregate D&S, etc., and eventually somebody would say, "Hey, why are we doing this when we all know that this Keynesian stuff is utter bullshit?".

And the profs would say "Yeah, we know."

130

The easiest way to get out of this mess is a 10% investment tax credit for business like Reagan did. Businesses have over $2 Trillion now in the bank.

With the 10% investment tax credit businesses would have to spend $10 to get a $1 credit. That's a real multiplier.

131 If its true that 1.00 in spending causes 1.50 in economic prosperity, why wouldn't we spend ALL OUR MONEY ON IT? Gee, thats a guaranteed 50% return on our money...

132 Their "multipliers" ignore another economic model called the Velocity of Money.  Readers digest condensed version is how fast a dollar turns hands in an economy.

Not that I disagree with your conclusion, but the idea that multipliers somehow IGNORE velocity is wrong. It's an integral part of the whole idea. Now, the pop-econ politician version of the idea might ignore differences in velocity between sectors, but the actual theory doesn't.

It should be noted that taxation effects don't usually figure in because the assumption is that this money will be borrowed rather than taxed (the taxation is supposed to happen later during the boom that (theoretically) follows). There is a great deal of debate and research about the extent to which this borrowing effects the credit markets and how that figures into the whole picture, and THAT, I think, is a key element in explaining why this particular stimulus was such a flop. The credit markets were already pretty devastated.

133 You must have been in school with me. My profs said things like that all the time. People think scientists are huge nerds, but economists really give them a run for their money (SWIDT?)

Yeah, but that's pathetic.  That's not real math, that's computing stuff.  A trained chimp could do that stuff.  Alternatively, a graduate student.

A big problem with economics is that they try to use mathematics to make predictions, using unmeasurable quantities as inputs.  The models are usually sound but...GIGO.

134 I went in the late 80s.  We'd start talking about MPC, MPS, Aggregate D&S, etc., and eventually somebody would say, "Hey, why are we doing this when we all know that this Keynesian stuff is utter bullshit?".

And the profs would say "Yeah, we know."

Yeah, now I'm totally convinced you were sitting two seats over from me.

135 Yeah, but that's pathetic.  That's not real math, that's computing stuff.  A trained chimp could do that stuff.  Alternatively, a graduate student.

Calculus is calculus. It doesn't matter if you're using it for econ or physics.

136

It's not a question of if and it's a question of when.  We are totally porked.

But we are survivors.  The ones who will be screwed are the Kool-aid drinkers.  The true believers and the career welfare recipients.

137 I can't believe you guys continue to criticize Obama, as he once famously said, We really should be thanking him.

/s

138 Has anybody else noticed that Obama's worldview is essentially that of a liberal in the 1970s?  In foreign policy, it's detente (now it's Islam instead of USSR, but the same thing).  In economics, it's Keynesianism.  Race, social issues, etc.

It's almost as if he's absorbed everything his elderly mentors taught him and learned nothing on his own.

139 Re Presidio, just a reminder: if they give money to do it. the state/local money that would have done it is free to be wasted somewhere else. So it's not of no stimulus effect.

140 It's almost as if he's absorbed everything his elderly mentors taught him and learned nothing on his own.

The hell you say!

141 132

I agree Farmer Joe... what Im saying is the Economists like Krugman or other Keynsian adherents are only looking at the downstream impact of "stimulus".  They are totally ignoring the upstream impact of either taxation which does not affect money supply or printing off new money, which changes money supply and puts in motion a whole other set of economic dynamics.

142 Time calls Zandi "closely watched." Yes, because they keep hoping if they watch long enough he will get something right.

Does anyone have a real infrastructure project going in their town? Bridges repaired, buildings built? In LA we have lots of ARRA signs, no work.

143 No worries. It'll all get sorted out in the war.

Posted by: Farmer Joe at September 03, 2010 01:49 PM (z4es9)

Farmer Joe: Economist, Historian, Moron.

144 Calculus is calculus. It doesn't matter if you're using it for econ or physics.

Yes, but it's easy.  Or in this case, it isn't really calculus, it's just turning a crank.  It's not understanding where the calculus comes from.

The Black-Scholes model of option pricing, now that's good stuff.

145 sadly the RNC has no balls and would never do something like that. You should be looking at 527 groups or Rove's new PAC American Crossroads to put something like your ad out there.

146 I agree Farmer Joe... what Im saying is the Economists like Krugman or other Keynsian adherents are only looking at the downstream impact of "stimulus".  They are totally ignoring the upstream impact of either taxation which does not affect money supply or printing off new money, which changes money supply and puts in motion a whole other set of economic dynamics.

Oh, absolutely. As another poster said, the whole idea of stimulus is that it's supposed to be short term, and really, if you want to take a sort of Freidmanian perspective, it's mostly about readjusting expectations. Get things moving in the right direction, and the private sector will take over.

Provided, of course, you haven't put the private sector into a fear coma with threats of massive regulation.

147 Yes, but it's easy.  Or in this case, it isn't really calculus, it's just turning a crank.  It's not understanding where the calculus comes from.

I have no idea where you get this idea, other than just not liking economists.

148 A big problem with economics is that they try to use mathematics to make predictions, using unmeasurable quantities as inputs.

It's called "The Economist's Small Dick Theorem".

Economics is a social science.  Part theoretical math, part psychology, and part common sense.  Economists somewhere along the line got the idea that they were "hard scientists" and decided that they were just as good as those chemists and physicists down the hall, so they invented a bunch of gnarly looking equations to prove it.  They were wrong.

149 Farmer Joe: Economist, Historian, Moron.

Adventurer, reconteur, ladies' man... I do it all.

150 Adventurer, reconteur, ladies' man... I do it all.

Jib, cut..... newsletter??

151 That is, if everyone's on the same page, pushing the same bourgeois value of labor and effort, it will significantly dampen the morally-corrosive effects of welfare and such

As you say later, that doesn't really work forever, over time eventually even that kind of society grinds to a halt economically, as Europe has discovered.

152 The spoiled-brat American electorate

Mr. Robinson,

I'm sorry you see it this way, but you are wrong.

Most of the American electorate would get a big smile out that scene in the movie "Independence Day" where the aliens destroy the White House and the Capitol, but unfortunately the aliens are tardy so we are forced to work within the US electoral system with the poor candidates that we get offered.  The last batch of officeholders were some of the worst (i.e. passing stuff without reading it, spending money like the world was going to end with the Mayan calendar, blaming everybody but themselves, etc.), so whether you like it of not, this is the best we can do.

Once again, I'm sorry you see it this way.

All the best, A bitter clinger

PS If you come across any space aliens, please direct them to DC.  We could use a fresh start

153 Economists somewhere along the line got the idea that they were "hard scientists" and decided that they were just as good as those chemists and physicists down the hall, so they invented a bunch of gnarly looking equations to prove it.  They were wrong.

I don't really think that's true. I think it's just that by the time most of the theories hit the real world, they're so dumbed down they can't help but be wrong.

Add to that a certain amount of academic groupthink. (And if you think the hard sciences are immune to that, well... *coughcough*climatechange*coughcough*

154 he discussed the economy with New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg (I) for 15 minutes before golfing – but got little traction."

Yeah, I was in the stall next to those guys. It was ugly.

155 Which, once again, proves my the views I developed over the course of my economics major - the idea that economics is purely a "science" and that, through econometrics, you can solidly predict the outcome of economic policies, is insane.  The thing about liberals/leftists in economics is that they tend to view people as completely and utterly predictable - the Marxist theory of cogs in the wheel.  They're, at least economically speaking, "assets."  (Ironic, isn't it, given the constant charge of how eeeeeeeevil capitalists view people that way?)  Thus, you can "scientifically" predict behavior and output, etc., through econometrics.

I did a paper on this economist, the father of econometrics, named Schumpeter.  (Sp?  It's been several years).  When he first developed econometrics, he believed that they told the entire story and were all you ever needed.  He then saw the folly of that and abandoned them completely.  Eventually, he came to understand that they have a *usefulness*, but are the not the be-all, end-all in the field of economics.  Simply put, without broader cultural and historical understanding, over-reliance on econometrics leads to catastrophic misunderstanding of economic systems and results from policies. 

In the end, then, economics is as much an art as it is a science - the ability to balance a greater understanding of human nature and society along with generalized economic principles to for a more complete economic system.  In my experience, this more closely follows what are *usually* generally conservative economists.

I understand the desire to run to an equation every chance you get - it's almost encoded in our "cultural DNA" thanks to our epistemological dualism and resultant rampant scientism.  However, given the fact that so many economists are willing to escape the bounds of such biases, it shouldn't be that hard to wake up, so to speak, and not be caught up in economic "number-crunching."  On the other hand, never underestimate devotion to Marx (or even watered-down Marxist thought).

the sinner,

Patrick

156

Adventurer, reconteur, ladies' man... I do it all.

Oh really?

157 I have no idea where you get this idea, other than just not liking economists.

I was just commenting on "loving partial derivatives".  It's like "I just adore long division."

And I don't have anything against economists, other than economics is easy.

158 The end is near. Earthquake at Christchurch.

159

;">President Obama is serious about the economy:

;">“His advisers described his attentiveness – noting, for example, that he discussed the economy with New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg (I) for 15 minutes before golfing – but got little traction."

;">Wow, an entire 15 minutes!

And 15 minutes with an idiot, no less.

160 I saw a link somewhere yesterday about illegals returning to Mexico because of the Oconomy. Any relation to this summer's 'created' private sector jobs?

161

We can get out of this:  Cut the government more than we cut government revenues.

If we eliminate those things that government should not be doing, and cut taxes sufficiently that we A)spur growth and B) run huge government surpluses, we can do it.

I would suggest, in the short term, a government budget of $1T.  Eliminate Soc Sec, Medicare, Medicaid, Energy, Education, Interior, Labor, etc.  That leaves Defense and dog food for Bo.

Cut taxes massively, such that the revenues to the government amount to say 1.2T.  The tax cuts spur growth, and with the same budget, revennues grow to say 1.5T.  Two years and we have a 500B reduction in our debt.  That is the only way we are going to grow out of this, and it will take many years, with us eventually reducing federal tax drag on the economy to very little as a % of GDP.

Ha. So your saying we're screwed, because none of that is going to happen.

162 Which, once again, proves my the views I developed over the course of my economics major - the idea that economics is purely a "science" and that, through econometrics, you can solidly predict the outcome of economic policies, is insane.

There is now equation for why I don't like anchovies on my pizza.  In fact, you can't come up with a reproducible experiment to even prove I don't like anchovies on my pizza.  Economics is not a "science-science".

I was just commenting on "loving partial derivatives".  It's like "I just adore long division."

And I don't have anything against economists, other than economics is easy.

Economics is not math.  Some people think it is, but that don't make it so.
And if economics is so easy, then why are we in this mess?

163 So your saying we're screwed, because none of that is going to happen.

I can assure you 100% that the vast majority of that is going to happen.  Whether it is before or after the collapse of our civilization is a different question.

164

The M.-I. complex is actually pretty good about investing in research.

I like research into making things blow up, but I gotta tell you most of that crap is useless in industry.

I hate to the bearer of bad news but the military is one of the most wasteful organizations out there. I can't think of a single weapons program that hasn't ballooned astronomically in cost over the life of the project. LCS, Landwarrior, F35, F22.

165 There's an added reason that this was a flop.

Keynes was about infrastructure spending. Not random spending. And you have to tie the spending to the communities you're trying to help. Not just "It was spent there" but "it was used as payroll there."

Decent examples are the WPA big dam projects. The bulk of the cash is either payroll or going to reasonably local raw material suppliers - and it is undeniably infrastructure. (It still is arguably less effective than private spending on the exact same projects, but at least it's freaking Keynesian.)

But Obamanomics isn't even Keynesian. In Washington State, we received $60 million for highway improvements. Highway = infrastructure, sounds fine. But this is for readerboards - which are a tough sale (IMNSHO) as "infrastructure". And the readerboards are constructed overseas. So $55 million of the pile goes to overseas electronics firms, steel plants etc. The rest goes to a government department that already had year-round employees for things like installing signs.

That isn't Keynesian spending, it's just stupid.

166

I can assure you 100% that the vast majority of that is going to happen.  Whether it is before or after the collapse of our civilization is a different question.

That's why I say we're screwed because there is no way what you said will happen before a collapse.

And if there is a collapse, I vote for a complete dissolution of the federal government.

167

80--Keynes thought that governments should run surpluses in boom times, which would have the effect of paying for the money you spent during recessions, and also slowing the rate of growth, which would tend to make the recessions less deep to begin with. Somehow that part of the Keynesian program never seems to get implemented.

Bingo--Keynes' biggest sin isn't that he proposed deficit spending in lean times, it's that, like a lot of people in his time who believed in the perfectability of man, he actually believed that governments would make a concerted effort to run surpluses in flush economic times, and hold on to it for when the economy took a downturn.

There's a reason Keynesianism was called the "Beautiful Theory" and not the "Ugly Truth."

168

Cut taxes massively, such that the revenues to the government amount to say 1.2T.  The tax cuts spur growth, and with the same budget, revennues grow to say 1.5T.  Two years and we have a 500B reduction in our debt.  That is the only way we are going to grow out of this, and it will take many years, with us eventually reducing federal tax drag on the economy to very little as a % of GDP.

Sure, that might work, but our gov't is short about 500 brains and 1200 testes to get that going (and that's just counting elected officials).

Maybe things will be different soon.

169 Its been fun having economists (and a lot of other social scientist) suck my cock for decades.

170

OT but I just can't understand the setitment that Reihl, Levin, and Erickson are spouting.  Rather have a democrat then a RINO.  Are you fucking out of your damn minds!  Especially in a year like this, a year where we actually can take back the senate?  The tea party has done a good job getting squishes out in red/purple states, but Delaware?  If O'Donnell wasn't a terrible candidate maybe, but come on, she's clueless.  My twitterfeed is driving me up a wall today.

171

Like Dr. House, I like to use analogies.  I compare government to the Watusi tribesmen.  Their primary use for cattle is milk and blood.   The milk, Mother nature provides, at little or no cost to the animal.  They also use old razor blades to nick a vein on poor critters neck to draw blood to make some type of nutritional substance, gack.  They can bleed to cow only with certain limits. Draw too little and they get no food.  Draw too much and the blood gets thinner, less nutricious and you can even kill the cow. 

Guess what folks.  Were the cattle.  We've been bleed a little too much and now we aren't producing much milk and our bloods getting thin.  As a country we are getting sick and weak.  Keep it up and the country is dead.

Regarding Keysian Economics, I think the equations have changed on two levels.  Back to analogies.  Government priming the pump with deficit spending worked when we weren't in too much debt.  Government spending to improve a really crappy road system, build hydro-electric dams and decent water supplies did stimulate the economy in both the short and long run.   Cheaper more abundent transportation and energy leads to efficiencies in production in the private sector and access to more raw materials.  A decent school leads to a more educated workforce able to keep up with technology.  The problem with Keysian boosts now two fold.  First, we are priming the pump with fake or empty dollars.  Like trying to keep an engine running on ether or your kid on sugar both with burnout fairly quickly.  Also, We have a pretty good infrastructure in place.  Tearing down an older but functional school to build a new one when there isn't a demand for it has no long term value, especially when we factor in Teachers unions.

This economy will not truely turn around untill we have a president and congress willing to get rid of Our skittle shitting healthcare reform package, deeply restrain regulation and quit funding a shitload of projects. 

Republicans taking the House and Senate in November will slow us from running off the cliff but will not be sufficient to reverse our direction.  We need a Reagan not another Bush  in the Whitehouse to save this country. 

Were I Earth Czar I would:

Impliment an immediate hiring freeze in government at federal, State and Local levels.

Freeze the current governtment employees salaries until they are in line with the private sector.

Allow attrician to make a 40% in non-military government jobs.

Haul the heads of government entities in fron of congress and a board of CEO's to justify the cost benefit of each regulation.

Repeal the recent healthcare legislation.

Reform the legal system, so only cost of damages are awarded to plantiffs.  Punitive damages go to third party charities. 

Freeze research grants, student loans and student grants for 3 years and then begin an annual 10% reduction in all untill we are at a balanced budget and our nation debt is paid off.  Our system of higher education has not had to respond to market forces for too long.

It's good to be king.

 

172 I guess they figure that once these guys, the RINOs get in there, you won't be able to get rid of them.  Maybe they figure the strategy as has been previously used hasn't worked, they get to DC and all bets are off.  And maybe they fear in parts of the country that conservative dems have infiltrated to republican party as more and more republicans became independents or conservatives.  Just thinking out loud.

173 Ohio Dan: Add this to the list of cuts.
An immediate cut to every single non-field-agent government paycheck. (Police and firemen that actually ride a beat/truck -> field agent.)

But they can get a waiver and their original pay reinstated if they fire a non-field-agent.

174 172 I guess they figure that once these guys, the RINOs get in there, you won't be able to get rid of them.  Maybe they figure the strategy as has been previously used hasn't worked, they get to DC and all bets are off.  And maybe they fear in parts of the country that conservative dems have infiltrated to republican party as more and more republicans became independents or conservatives.  Just thinking out loud.

Posted by: curious at September 03, 2010 02:45 PM (p302b)

 

So you were against scott brown too huh?

175

172 I guess they figure that once these guys, the RINOs get in there, you won't be able to get rid of them

Same could be said for the actual Dems's they're willing to let be elected in their stead.

176

Posted by: Ohio Dan at September 03, 2010 02:42 PM (rurh0)

Agreed, with pretty much all points.  That said, bear in mind that you're going to have to deal with a lot of human misery that the current system covers up.  America has been paying people to be failures for 3 generations now.  There is  a tremendous entitlement class, and many, many bureaucrats are needed to administer it all under the current system. 

Once we remove the people and budget that we currently employ to keep the underclass mollified, we'll have a mess to clean up.  

Does America have the stomach for it?  Based on what a lot of so-called conservatives have to say on matters related to the underclass, I'd say that's a NO.

   

177

I work in State government and I've said from the beginning that ARRA wasn't going to create one damn job.  When money goes out through a State agency, it goes to a contractor.  Nine times out of ten that contractor is already engaged with the State (I'm speaking for NH, but it applies elsewhere, too).  They don't hire more workers.  The State just uses the funding for new projects with the same contractors.  This is not new. 

I've always felt that Obama's push for ARRA and all those "shovel ready" jobs was just his way of trying to be a modern day FDR.  What the dipwad and his sycophants in the media never took into account is that FDR's "stimulus" agencies (the CCC, etc) were building NEW infrastructure.  New roads, new bridges, new dams, what have you.  That's just not the case anymore.  Now the exact OPPOSITE is true, as cities and states let little-used roads go to hell and get reclaimed by sand instead of repaving them.  Modern roadwork is all about improving and repairing existing infrastructure, but we already have entire branches of government dedicated to that very purpose (hello Departments of Transportation).  How does shoveling more money into the government machine create private sector jobs? 

Oh, that's right.  IT DOESN'T.

178 I can't even open the goddam recovery.org site - FF, Chrome, IE - all I get is an aspx file download. You can only access the site through a page that ain't the home page. Then when you click on the home page you don't get the home page, you download the aspx file. The same webmaster fuck will probably be my doctor in three years, ain't that grand?

179 In all honesty I'm glad I didn't vote in the Brown election cause I don't live there.  I don't really know what I would have done, probably voted for him, but can't say for sure cause I didn't have to make that decision.

I know a bunch of people who had a dem county supervisor after years of republicans, the republicans were booted out cause of the corruption.  The dem wasn't bad except that for his third term he was planning to put in those traffic cameras (the republican ended up letting those go through) and a massive energy tax (the republican got rid of that on his first day).  Anyway, a lot of republicans voted for the dem cause he "wasn't that bad" (he had renovated the town hall so it could be used rather than renting office space and paying a lot for it) and thinking the republican could never win since the republican was apparently "very low key"...and guess what, the republican won.  So you never know.  Which is why I keep asking for someone to challenge chuckie shumer....

180 but got little traction."

Wow, an entire 15 minutes!

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at September 03, 2010 01:37 PM

Come on, guys.  My bicycle's tires were wet!

181 Ace - You are an idea guy. To say that you should do the ad does not necessarily mean you should be editing video.(Does Karl Rove operate the camera when the Republicans make an ad?)

You have been talking up your friend and their movie that is entered in a contest. Get them to do the video work, or there are others here who would do it if your friend is a lib and does not want to do this.

182 You know my friend the other day said that the republicans have a respectable animal for their mascot and the dems, the dems have a jackass.  He was a lib/dem and he was wondering why the republicans don't capitalize on that fact.  I said to him "all republicans in kindergarten have the plays well with others box circled and checked, they are way too nice, and can always be counted on to play by the rules."  He answered me "yeah, the dems get dirty don't they?  Well I guess if the republicans won't get dirty, they aren't going to make great gains cause the dems are planning on getting dirty this election"...

183 From the article It must be understood that the “government purchases” section of the ARRA was almost entirely a bailout of public employee salaries at the state level. If “saving” these jobs was stimulus last year, and “saving” them again this year is stimulus, then every dime ever spent by the government is stimulus. See? I was right!

184 One of the liberal talking points is "It took Bush 8 years to destroy the economy. How can you expect Barry to fix it in only 2 years?"
Well Barry said he had the answers to everything and was going to heal the whole fucking world. You'd think he could have at least kept unemployment under 8%

185 You never want to rely on a Kraut's analysis too much, though. You start to hear the fanfares of Wagner and then, you know, you're goose-stepping your way through the Arc du Triomph. Made me spit up my milk, you did.

186 You cannot give yourself a transfusion from your leg to your arm. Actually that analogy would only work for spending if the person doing the transfusion took some blood "for the effort".

187 More: At Hot Air. Also at Hot Air: Ace of Spades - the goto site when you can't remember the URL for Hot Air.

188 You know, we had an economy that was revolving around the consumer.  clinton moved us from manufacturing to service based.  Only problem is he never addressed the issue of "what if no one wants the service?"

I'd love to know what these reps and dems in congress and the senate think they know that we don't know that has made them vote the way they have voted, completely against the American people, not worrying about losing their seats, not worrying about ignoring their electorate.

Something just doesn't seem right, can't put my finger on it but it just doesn't seem right.

the other day my WS friend was saying we "need a total reset so we don't destroy the middle class" and maybe he's right.  He thinks we need to adjust mortgages to home value so if you have a million dollar mortgage and your house is worth 700 grand, that you don't walk completely away when you realize you can't sell it (I use those numbers cause these are the people that will have a lot of money tied up in the property and you would think they wouldn't walk away from it, but, they seriously are considering doing it cause they have jobs and they don't want to continue paying a mortgage that they can never get ahead of)

the banks are going to have to take a huge hit and the fed too...they are going to have to forgive debt if they want to restart the economy.

189 I think we might see a big fat electoral CTRL-ALT-DEL come this November.

190 >>>Ace of Spades - the goto site when you can't remember the URL for Hot Air. hah. Well, i get busted on this, but if they do a round-up, what is the point of my stealing links and doing my version of the round up? When I have something new to contribute, I do; when I don't, I don't waste my time (or yours) trying to manufacture something. Some stuff you guys want to talk about but I got nothing, so I float the topic and the link. But I can't pretend i have something interesting to say about it. I have to say one knock I have on some bloggers is that they have nothing really to say but still feel the need (maybe out of a sense of professionalism) to add two paragraphs of analysis. I think that's a waste of both of our time. Sometimes a link and a topic is all you can really contribute.

191 Ace: "Chain the media to the Democrats and the Democrats to the media and let 'em both drown from the other's weight."

An albatross wearing an albatross? How ironic. It's like a Mobius strip of fail.

192 A visual representation of what needs to be done to these policies from one of the greatest movies made:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqHZWdFVyyQ&feature=related

193 ace, i think you are spot on about the 'homogeneous society' bit... I would broaden it up a bit though, like some sort of binding force or something that unites the populace. Many nations have a story behind them, especially the 'great' civilizations. We have the founding fathers. Rome had Romulus and Aeneas. Israel/Jews have theirs. China. England. Etc. Certain characteristics that make the people uniquely French, or Japanese. Not just people who happen to live near each other, but some sense of commonality. Historically, this has been ramped up in a few places - nationalism. And that is usually more effective in areas that are smaller and more densely populated. Regardless, the stronger the common purpose, the less deleterious are the stupid economic policies.

194 Hey, here's a stupid question: HTF can a 15-year-old, uncompleted project (Presidio Parkway) be said to be going ahead on schedule? WTF kind of project has a 15-year planning stage? STAGE? Maybe it should occur to someone that the project is providing a project to be worked on forever, to shovel money to chosen privilegees, not to actually build anything for use by anyone. Only a public project can do that. FIFTEEN YEARS "on schedule"? And still in the "planning stage"? How many more years in the planning stage? Then they have to do the approvals and contracting. Okay, maybe something will be completed by 2035? But only if the federal government stops helping out.

195

homogeneous society?  Dude, socialism didn't work for the Soviets or the Cubans either...  

95% of Cubans get their paychecks directly from the government, the way you hear Michael Moore and the rest of the liberal morons talk you would think Cuba was the Western Hemisphere's version of Dubai.  NOT

196 CTRL-ALT-DEL should be the GOP message this year.
Thanks Comrade Arthur.

197 beautiful, beautiful ideas !

absolutely right, chain the media and the dems together at the neck and throw them in the deep end !

only problem, it would require the rnc to unf#*& itself enough to do something useful - the next time that happens will be the first.


just sayin, ya know.

don't get me started.

198 "His idea is that Europe's homogeneous societies make socialism plausible. It doesn't work, really, but it works better than generally experienced. America, on the other hand, is highly heterogeneous, so it doesn't work."

Am I still banned for making far less "racist" statements than this one?

199 I guess not.  Thanks Ace &c.

200

201 PDF Creator can creat PDF document files from Microsoft Office 2003/2007/2010 (Word, Excel, PowerPoint), image (JPEG, GIF, TIFF, PNG, BMP), Text, RTF, CHM, DjVu and more printable files.
PDF Creator
JPEG to PDF Converter
GIF to PDF Converter
PNG to PDF Converter

202 Ginza buying area is pictured in middle Tokyo,Jordan retro home to some with one of the most expensive commercial genuine estate even although in the country. Japan's financial bape shoes system expanded additional than in the beginning believed even although in the next quarter, federal government information showed Friday, as domestic firms ramped up money expenditure. Posted by: chi straightener at September 09, 2010 11:57 PM (S+GtL)