PDA

View Full Version : Economics States Running Surpluses


|Zach|
06-05-2010, 03:15 AM
http://donklephant.com/2010/06/05/surprise-states-running-surpluses/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+donklephant/CFBW+(Donklephant)

The doomsayers are out in full force today…which I find puzzling.

After all, the jobs report today, while not overtly positive, was still nearly 200,000 better than the previous month and one would think it could be seen as either neutral or slightly positive.

Yes, many of the jobs added were seasonal and created by the government…but that’s still money going back into the economy and job experience that folks didn’t have before. And, trust me, that’s a good thing for those workers.

And now we get a sign that states, who were seriously suffering the last two years, are actually bringing in more than they were spending.

From USA Today:
The fortunes of many governments could improve dramatically this year if the national economic recovery continues, a USA TODAY analysis found. A flood of federal stimulus money and a modest upturn in tax receipts have improved the health of states after two years of financial havoc.
Revenue has grown faster than spending for three straight quarters, reports the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Tax collections are up, too, although they remain below the peak of 2008.

“The turnaround is here, thankfully,” says North Carolina budget director Charlie Perusse.

Most states, cities and school districts are still struggling to balance budgets whacked in a recession that began in December 2007. But most signs provide rays of hope.

And here’s a look at the states’ spending over the past decade…

http://img.skitch.com/20100605-rmybf5yr9tyx8kcsm5yprw7r6d.jpg

Saul Good
06-05-2010, 03:07 PM
That isn't money going back into the economy. It's money coming out of the private sector and going into the public sector. The Soviet Union was pretty good at doing that.

max sleeper
06-05-2010, 03:10 PM
That isn't money going back into the economy. It's money coming out of the private sector and going into the public sector. The Soviet Union was pretty good at doing that.

Saul Bad needs to take the blinders off! Go Chiefs!

banyon
06-05-2010, 03:10 PM
That isn't money going back into the economy. It's money coming out of the private sector and going into the public sector. The Soviet Union was pretty good at doing that.

Where do the census workers buy their food, clothing, automobiles, housing, etc? In the public or private sector?

vailpass
06-05-2010, 03:13 PM
Counting temporary census workers in the employment figures is FAIL.
Zach you are smarter than this.

Stewie
06-05-2010, 03:18 PM
The jobs report was absolutely horrendous! That's why the stock market took a huge dump. There was nothing good about those numbers at all. The uptick in state revenues came directly from federal gov't debt.

"States! You can't print money, but we can. Here ya go!"

It's a fucking house of cards.

Saul Good
06-05-2010, 03:38 PM
Where do the census workers buy their food, clothing, automobiles, housing, etc? In the public or private sector?

The same place they would if they were on welfare, the private sector. It's also the same place that the people would have spent their money had it not been taken from them in the form of taxation.

BucEyedPea
06-05-2010, 03:43 PM
The jobs report was absolutely horrendous! That's why the stock market took a huge dump. There was nothing good about those numbers at all. The uptick in state revenues came directly from federal gov't debt.

"States! You can't print money, but we can. Here ya go!"

It's a ****ing house of cards.

There's been some cut backs in some states too. That's a good thing.

mikey23545
06-05-2010, 04:23 PM
Where do the census workers buy their food, clothing, automobiles, housing, etc? In the public or private sector?

You dumb ass, the money they're spending came out of the pockets of the people who are selling those automobiles, housing, and clothing...

It's called socialism...

banyon
06-05-2010, 04:39 PM
You dumb ass, the money they're spending came out of the pockets of the people who are selling those automobiles, housing, and clothing...

It's called socialism...

Actually it's called the investment/consumption multiplier. Take a basic Econ 101 class sometime.

banyon
06-05-2010, 04:44 PM
The same place they would if they were on welfare, the private sector. It's also the same place that the people would have spent their money had it not been taken from them in the form of taxation.

Two things to consider:

1) people with jobs in lower income brackets (which these jobs are) spend money at a much higher rate than the wealthier who are more likely to store it away (or at the moment, likely just buy some gold bars which does nothing for the economy).

2) The rate of circulation of money through the economy has a multiplying effect. The money that these people spend won't just stop at their first purchase, that money will be recirculated when the people selling those goods buy their own goods, etc.

There was a prediction that the "cash for clunkers" program was a totally failed concept because once the program was gone, the sales would dry back up. That's not what happened. Part of the industry (particularly Ford) has continued auto sales well past the end of the program and demand appears to be back up.

Saul Good
06-05-2010, 06:00 PM
Two things to consider:

1) people with jobs in lower income brackets (which these jobs are) spend money at a much higher rate than the wealthier who are more likely to store it away (or at the moment, likely just buy some gold bars which does nothing for the economy).

People with jobs in lower income brackets or just people in lower income brackets? Like I said, earlier, it's the same impact as putting them on welfare. Whether they have a job or not doesn't really enter into the equation.

banyon
06-05-2010, 06:18 PM
People with jobs in lower income brackets or just people in lower income brackets? Like I said, earlier, it's the same impact as putting them on welfare. Whether they have a job or not doesn't really enter into the equation.

Is it welfare when the Pentagon spends on the Defense industry?

Should we have just abrogated this Constitutional requirement?

Is the GDP of China = ZERO? What are they buying our debt up with then?

In the end they aren't the same because the people on welfare aren't providing any good or service.

Saul Good
06-05-2010, 06:40 PM
Is it welfare when the Pentagon spends on the Defense industry?

Should we have just abrogated this Constitutional requirement?

Is the GDP of China = ZERO? What are they buying our debt up with then?

In the end they aren't the same because the people on welfare aren't providing any good or service.

It's not the same across the board, but it has the same economic impact. Public sector jobs don't boost the economy. If your argument is that they spend the money at a higher rate than wealthy people do, my response is that the same thing can be said of welfare recipients.

Saul Good
06-05-2010, 06:42 PM
On a side note, why does it take half a million people to do the census? If there are around 300 million people in the US, that means that it takes one census worker for every 600 people counted.

Chief Faithful
06-05-2010, 06:43 PM
Actually it's called the investment/consumption multiplier. Take a basic Econ 101 class sometime.

Money is being circulated, but capital is not being created or increased. Econ 201.

banyon
06-05-2010, 07:19 PM
It's not the same across the board, but it has the same economic impact. Public sector jobs don't boost the economy. If your argument is that they spend the money at a higher rate than wealthy people do, my response is that the same thing can be said of welfare recipients.

You're incorrect on this. Government jobs are vastly more productive than just welfare checks. A good or service is being produced.

banyon
06-05-2010, 07:19 PM
Money is being circulated, but capital is not being created or increased. Econ 201.

Good and services produce capital. This is a service. Econ 301.

Saul Good
06-05-2010, 07:30 PM
You're incorrect on this. Government jobs are vastly more productive than just welfare checks. A good or service is being produced.

It's a government service. The economic impact is virtually nil.

Saul Good
06-05-2010, 07:31 PM
Good and services produce capital. This is a service. Econ 301.

How does this service produce capital?

ROYC75
06-05-2010, 08:56 PM
Counting temporary census workers in the employment figures is FAIL.
Zach you are smarter than this.


Stop giving him credit when it is not due. No he isn't that smart. The truth is the numbers are only from the increased government jobs. A double dip recession is on the horizon.

What will be the POTUS and the Obots excuse then ?

ROYC75
06-05-2010, 09:00 PM
Money is being circulated, but capital is not being created or increased. Econ 201.

BINGO ....... spreading the wealth. It's minimal wealth, but it's spreading it around for a short period of time that they can say, Hey look, we created new jobs and have saved a lot of jobs.

Before long, it will be time to print more money for another failed stimulus.

ROYC75
06-05-2010, 09:01 PM
Good and services produce capital. This is a service. Econ 301.

It's not lasting jobs, it's failed Econ 101.

petegz28
06-05-2010, 10:45 PM
http://donklephant.com/2010/06/05/surprise-states-running-surpluses/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+donklephant/CFBW+(Donklephant)

The doomsayers are out in full force today…which I find puzzling.

After all, the jobs report today, while not overtly positive, was still nearly 200,000 better than the previous month and one would think it could be seen as either neutral or slightly positive.

Yes, many of the jobs added were seasonal and created by the government…but that’s still money going back into the economy and job experience that folks didn’t have before. And, trust me, that’s a good thing for those workers.

And now we get a sign that states, who were seriously suffering the last two years, are actually bringing in more than they were spending.

From USA Today:
The fortunes of many governments could improve dramatically this year if the national economic recovery continues, a USA TODAY analysis found. A flood of federal stimulus money and a modest upturn in tax receipts have improved the health of states after two years of financial havoc.
Revenue has grown faster than spending for three straight quarters, reports the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Tax collections are up, too, although they remain below the peak of 2008.

“The turnaround is here, thankfully,” says North Carolina budget director Charlie Perusse.

Most states, cities and school districts are still struggling to balance budgets whacked in a recession that began in December 2007. But most signs provide rays of hope.

And here’s a look at the states’ spending over the past decade…

http://img.skitch.com/20100605-rmybf5yr9tyx8kcsm5yprw7r6d.jpg

That's 100% BS. 95% of the jobs created were TEMPORARY CENSUS WORKERS. This jobs report sucks major asshole.

petegz28
06-05-2010, 10:47 PM
Good and services produce capital. This is a service. Econ 301.

Sustainable growth of capital is not built on temporary jobs

PeteCon eleventybillion00000000000000001

banyon
06-06-2010, 01:04 AM
Sustainable growth of capital is not built on temporary jobs

PeteCon eleventybillion00000000000000001

I agree with that. Our long term erosion of our productive base is beginning to catch up with us.

My only point here was that they aren't "nothing" jobs, and that they may help bridge a gap until the private sector is able to recover. No, you wouldn't want to base your economy on census jobs, but I don't think anyone is trying to either.

banyon
06-06-2010, 01:08 AM
How does this service produce capital?

Investment capital at least comes from savings/reinvestment of profits. For these 400,000 workers, they will spend money. A few of them may be able to save money enough to get back on their feet and start up a small business that had stalled, etc. Those that can't will spend their money on goods and services in the economy. Those companies that receive the consumption dollars may be able to avoid severe losses, collapse, or better yet, increased demand for their product may lead to additional hiring or profits that can be reinvested (i.e., capitally).

banyon
06-06-2010, 01:09 AM
It's not lasting jobs, it's failed Econ 101.

No one claimed they were lasting. Reading Comprehension 101.

googlegoogle
06-06-2010, 04:19 AM
Good and services produce capital. This is a service. Econ 301. You take money out of the economy and then give it to someone else. You are paying people to be unproductive. Welfare doesn't help and incentives people to lay in the hammock. A good economy helps. Borderline Marxian economics. [hmmmm.gif]

HonestChieffan
06-06-2010, 07:22 AM
On a side note, why does it take half a million people to do the census? If there are around 300 million people in the US, that means that it takes one census worker for every 600 people counted.

How else can you pad the employment figures if you dont hire a ton of people to do it...soccer moms needing a few extra bucks need jobs too you know.

Saul Good
06-06-2010, 07:54 AM
Investment capital at least comes from savings/reinvestment of profits. For these 400,000 workers, they will spend money. A few of them may be able to save money enough to get back on their feet and start up a small business that had stalled, etc. Those that can't will spend their money on goods and services in the economy. Those companies that receive the consumption dollars may be able to avoid severe losses, collapse, or better yet, increased demand for their product may lead to additional hiring or profits that can be reinvested (i.e., capitally).

Again, this is true of money given to welfare recipients.

The service provided by these jobs doesn't produce anything that will create capital (your claim).

cdcox
06-06-2010, 08:44 AM
Public sector jobs don't boost the economy.

So if Mizzou closed, the economic impact on Columbia, MO would be zero?

Saul Good
06-06-2010, 08:56 AM
So if Mizzou closed, the economic impact on Columbia, MO would be zero?

I never said that public sector jobs don't have an economic impact. I said that they don't boost the economy. If we give pot heads $100 of taxpayer money each, the Cheeto industry would be impacted, but it wouldn't be a boost to the economy.

Universities actually collect money for the service they provide as well. Then, you have private donations that pay for much of the expenses. The same can not be said of the census.

500,000 at $50,000 each (guessing) is $25,000,000,000. Add in another 25% or so for benefits, and you've got over $31,000,000,000 without factoring in advertising, travel, materials, etc. By the time it's all said and done, it will probably wind up costing us around $50,000,000,000 just to count 300,000,000 people. That's almost $200 for every person counted so that we can figure out how to dole out tax money. It's insane. (I'm sure my numbers are off some, but they aren't off by enough that the point doesn't stand.)

ROYC75
06-06-2010, 09:15 AM
that they may help bridge a gap until the private sector is able to recover.

This must be the " Hope and Change " Obama promised.

Hope, Change, May ....... Reality class 101

Hydrae
06-06-2010, 10:30 AM
How about instead of taking my money out of my pocket in taxes to give to someone else via a makework job, you leave the money in my pocket to begin with? Then when I spend it, I can directly assist the economy. Heck, now maybe I can be the one to start a business since I have direct control over my own earning!

2bikemike
06-06-2010, 10:53 AM
http://donklephant.com/2010/06/05/surprise-states-running-surpluses/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+donklephant/CFBW+(Donklephant)



Revenue has grown faster than spending for three straight quarters, reports the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Tax collections are up, too, although they remain below the peak of 2008.


Most states, cities and school districts are still struggling to balance budgets whacked in a recession that began in December 2007. But most signs provide rays of hope.



IMHO Revenue has grown faster than spending due to the fact that most Local and State Governments have been forced to cut spending at unprecedented rates. Along with that they have increased taxes in many areas. Throw in the temp stimulus jobs and yeah the picture looks a little rosy.

However it won't be long and they will be throwing money around again like they don't have a care in the world. We will then be right back in the shitter again.

banyon
06-06-2010, 02:55 PM
Again, this is true of money given to welfare recipients.

The service provided by these jobs doesn't produce anything that will create capital (your claim).

The Census has it's own service purposes, one of which is to help us allocate resources more efficiently. No, they aren't making widgets, but they aren't just collecting a check either.

Like I said, would you have preferred that we abrogate the Constitutional duty?

banyon
06-06-2010, 02:59 PM
You take money out of the economy and then give it to someone else. You are paying people to be unproductive. Welfare doesn't help and incentives people to lay in the hammock. A good economy helps. Borderline Marxian economics. [hmmmm.gif]

Every economist since the turn of the 20th century has included government spending as part of the economy.

The friggin formula is Y = C + I + G + NX, where Y = GDP, C = Consmption, I = Investment, G= Government, and NX = Exports.

Even CONSERVATIVE economists do this. Pretty much the only people that don't are internet forum blowhards who don't understand economics. It certainly isn't "Marxian" (I assume you meant "Marxist", but are so unfamiliar that you don't even know the f*cking term), as Marxists believe that value is created by labor value and not consumption, demand, etc. They don't use that formula.

Money spent by the government isn't "out of the economy", that's straight up stupid. Answer this question, What was China's GDP when they had a pure command economy? Was it ZERO? This is the second time I've asked this question and no one wants to answer it.

banyon
06-06-2010, 03:02 PM
This must be the " Hope and Change " Obama promised.

Hope, Change, May ....... Reality class 101

Right, he should have campaigned on Misery and the Status Quo 2012!

Common f*cking sense 101.

|Zach|
06-06-2010, 03:11 PM
It's not lasting jobs, it's failed Econ 101.

You are fucking retarded.

Tell whoever is reading this for you that they are doing a bad job. Then maybe you can try to bring something up that isn't stated clearly and obviously.

go bowe
06-06-2010, 06:38 PM
You are ****ing retarded.

Tell whoever is reading this for you that they are doing a bad job. Then maybe you can try to bring something up that isn't stated clearly and obviously.hey, just because you played h.s. ball doesn't mean you're old enough to know shit...

of course, knowing shit isn't always what it's cracked up to be...

Saul Good
06-06-2010, 06:42 PM
The Census has it's own service purposes, one of which is to help us allocate resources more efficiently. No, they aren't making widgets, but they aren't just collecting a check either.

Like I said, would you have preferred that we abrogate the Constitutional duty?

Absolutely not. I'm not against the census. I'm just against pretending that it does something for the economy that it doesn't.

ROYC75
06-07-2010, 10:02 AM
You are ****ing retarded.

Tell whoever is reading this for you that they are doing a bad job. Then maybe you can try to bring something up that isn't stated clearly and obviously.

ROFL SWEET! The obvious is You posted a stupid thread about skewed #'s and then you want to blast someone else with profanity when you are called out for it!

Yep, Age, maturity, Still the same old Zach, you haven't changed a bit.

Enjoy your day! :D

ROYC75
06-07-2010, 10:04 AM
Right, he should have campaigned on Misery and the Status Quo 2012!

Common f*cking sense 101.


OK, at least my common sense does come down to my common cents, something the Liberals really do not care about,as long as they can play with other people's money, who cares. Right ?

|Zach|
06-07-2010, 10:14 AM
ROFL SWEET! The obvious is You posted a stupid thread about skewed #'s and then you want to blast someone else with profanity when you are called out for it!

Yep, Age, maturity, Still the same old Zach, you haven't changed a bit.

Enjoy your day! :D

How can you "call out" something written clearly in the article.

banyon
06-07-2010, 10:21 AM
OK, at least my common sense does come down to my common cents, something the Liberals really do not care about,as long as they can play with other people's money, who cares. Right ?

It's really hard to have discourse on this level. I'm afraid I must decline.

ROYC75
06-07-2010, 11:08 AM
How can you "call out" something written clearly in the article.

The article is false reporting, is an agenda pushed by the liberal press and the current administration. It's set up to fool the public, or at least try .

It's just that you bought into the idea that the article was truth.

ROYC75
06-07-2010, 11:09 AM
It's really hard to have discourse on this level. I'm afraid I must decline.

I figured it was over your head, as long as Liberals can spend other peoples money they don't really care where the money comes from ?

Hope this was simple enough this time.

Brock
06-07-2010, 11:12 AM
I figured it was over your head, as long as Liberals can spend other peoples money they don't really care where the money comes from ?

Hope this was simple enough this time.

You probably draw as much of "other peoples money" as anyone else, if not more.

|Zach|
06-07-2010, 11:30 AM
The article is false reporting, is an agenda pushed by the liberal press and the current administration. It's set up to fool the public, or at least try .

It's just that you bought into the idea that the article was truth.

It isn't.

Just because you people set up and knock down straw mans doesn't make it biased.

It isn't saying more than the information its giving.

You are doing the equivalent of reading an article about some promising Chiefs in training camp and going on and on about how ridiculous it is that people think the Chiefs are going to win the Superbowl.

Again, get someone new to read things for you.

King_Chief_Fan
06-07-2010, 11:57 AM
The Census has it's own service purposes, one of which is to help us allocate resources more efficiently. No, they aren't making widgets, but they aren't just collecting a check either.

Like I said, would you have preferred that we abrogate the Constitutional duty?

The missed opportunity here is not requiring those already drawing money to be doing something for it...like census taking. Putting 400k more people on the taxpayer payroll is stupid at best.

banyon
06-07-2010, 01:14 PM
The missed opportunity here is not requiring those already drawing money to be doing something for it...like census taking. Putting 400k more people on the taxpayer payroll is stupid at best.

Clinton already passed that bill in 1996. It was called Welfare-to-Work and eliminated welfare subsidies without employment.

banyon
06-07-2010, 01:16 PM
I figured it was over your head, as long as Liberals can spend other peoples money they don't really care where the money comes from ?

Hope this was simple enough this time.

Yeah, that really wasn't the level problem, but it's not surprising you didn't comprehend my post.

ROYC75
06-07-2010, 02:07 PM
You probably draw as much of "other peoples money" as anyone else, if not more.

I don't, my kids do, Lord knows I help them a lot.. I figure what the wife gets is less that what I pay in.

Wanna try again ?

ROYC75
06-07-2010, 02:14 PM
It isn't.

Just because you people set up and knock down straw mans doesn't make it biased.

It isn't saying more than the information its giving.

You are doing the equivalent of reading an article about some promising Chiefs in training camp and going on and on about how ridiculous it is that people think the Chiefs are going to win the Superbowl.

Again, get someone new to read things for you.

So what you are saying is the media, for the most part is not bias one way. For every Fox network being one way, I can name about at least 10 to 12 bias Liberal networks or papers.

go bowe
06-07-2010, 02:53 PM
Yep, Age, maturity, Still the same old Zach, you haven't changed a bit.see zach?

i told ya, just b/c you played h.s. football doesn't mean that you age like other people...

you will be a young punk forever and never become mature like roy...

hmmmm...

that may be a good thing...

King_Chief_Fan
06-07-2010, 03:43 PM
Clinton already passed that bill in 1996. It was called Welfare-to-Work and eliminated welfare subsidies without employment.

sounds like your buddy O doesn't know about that

Brock
06-07-2010, 03:44 PM
I don't, my kids do, Lord knows I help them a lot.. I figure what the wife gets is less that what I pay in.

Wanna try again ?

Was your wife employed?

ROYC75
06-07-2010, 05:00 PM
Was your wife employed?

Yep, many a years until she got sick, she's entitled, it's not a free ride.

|Zach|
06-07-2010, 08:06 PM
So what you are saying is the media, for the most part is not bias one way. For every Fox network being one way, I can name about at least 10 to 12 bias Liberal networks or papers.
WTF?

No. I am not saying any of that. I can't even have a simple conversation with you.

Where on Earth did you get anything about my thoughts about media in general from me calling you out for not understanding the article and creating strawmen arguments from it.

Just stop. You are embarrassing yourself.

|Zach|
06-07-2010, 08:07 PM
see zach?

i told ya, just b/c you played h.s. football doesn't mean that you age like other people...

you will be a young punk forever and never become mature like roy...

hmmmm...

that may be a good thing...

Read our conversations back and forth. The guy can't keep a line of thought that makes any sense. It is fantastic.
ROFL

cannon1988
06-08-2010, 12:59 AM
The year was 1620 and, boy, it was marvelous. I remember that as being the only time where our government had no inclination to isolate states. I remember it as being the only time when we were unified under one authority.

Our savior, the federal government.

We miss you.

BucEyedPea
06-08-2010, 01:03 AM
The year was 1620 and, boy, it was marvelous. I remember that as being the only time where our government had no inclination to isolate states. I remember it as being the only time when we were unified under one authority.

Our savior, the federal government.

We miss you.

Yeah, as I recall we nearly starved to death practicing communism in the settlement. It's a good we ditched it bringing abundance....enough to be thankful for a real Thanksgiving.

cannon1988
06-08-2010, 01:04 AM
Yeah, as I recall we nearly starved to death practicing communism in the settlement. It's a good we ditched it bringing abundance....enough to be thankful for a real Thanksgiving.

I remember when the first automobile roamed freely with the cows. This was a result of freedom, provided by none other than our government.

BucEyedPea
06-08-2010, 01:25 AM
I remember when the first automobile roamed freely with the cows. This was a result of freedom, provided by none other than our government.

No govt takes freedom. It's the only thing that can. Anyone else who would gets prosecuted if caught. Things like human trafficking. We allow govt to take some for the sake of order but we keept the lionshare. That is in a free country. Not in a slave state like you want.

cannon1988
06-08-2010, 01:32 AM
No govt takes freedom. It's the only thing that can. Anyone else who would gets prosecuted if caught. Things like human trafficking. We allow govt to take some for the sake of order but we keept the lionshare. That is in a free country. Not in a slave state like you want.

Government ensures our freedom. Human trafficking is a result of deleterious governance and a true lack of initiative. If our government was able to fully control its citizens, then our established freedoms would be that much more prevalent.

googlegoogle
06-08-2010, 02:35 AM
Government ensures our freedom. Human trafficking is a result of deleterious governance and a true lack of initiative. If our government was able to fully control its citizens, then our established freedoms would be that much more prevalent.

The 19th,20th and 21th century governments will gladly take away rights in exchange for your 'security'.

ROYC75
06-08-2010, 09:08 AM
WTF?

No. I am not saying any of that. I can't even have a simple conversation with you.

Where on Earth did you get anything about my thoughts about media in general from me calling you out for not understanding the article and creating strawmen arguments from it.

Just stop. You are embarrassing yourself.

Sorry, I assumed the " GREAT ZACH " would understand that the article, IMHO was bias by my reading. Based on the fact that most news outlets are bias to one side or the other and the way the current administration and Liberals are using it to push their agenda. I did, I really thought you of all people would understand with your wisdom and knowledge. How did I miss that one ?:doh!:

FTR, I read the article and felt it was bias.

You said .... Originally Posted by |Zach| View Post
It isn't.

Just because you people set up and knock down straw mans doesn't make it biased.

It isn't saying more than the information its giving.

You are doing the equivalent of reading an article about some promising Chiefs in training camp and going on and on about how ridiculous it is that people think the Chiefs are going to win the Superbowl.

Again, get someone new to read things for you.



FTR, I don't need to, I seen it the 1st time, just as the #'s of jobs that are reported by the media to make Obama look better that what his failed plan is doing. But you probably do not by that argument,you are in line of thinking everything is OK,the economy is great and the country is on the right track to job growth, Right ?

joesomebody
06-08-2010, 10:14 AM
Again, this is true of money given to welfare recipients.

The service provided by these jobs doesn't produce anything that will create capital (your claim).Why not put them to work improving infrastructure? Public works projects were a huge money sink, but at least we have lakes, roads, highways, etc.

These are temporary government jobs that could leave a lasting impact on the country.

I think the biggest problem with this though is the greedy ass contracting firms. Efficiency is supposed to be the whole point of private sector contracting, but the corruption is destroying this to the point it is probably nil.

If anything, I would guess that once the census is over, unemployment will balloon. Many people that had given up and were no longer considered unemployed will now be back in the job market. Nothing wrong with that though, it will provide a clearer picture of the true unemployment.

The stimulus appears to be a huge flop so far, but I think it was done with the best of intentions. The Iraq/Afghanistan wars were a huge flop too, but I also think President Bush had good intentions. I think he was mislead by people who stood to gain from the war, but I think his intentions were good.

President Obama would have been hard pressed not to do a stimulus package. The bank bailout helped people that voted against him far more than it ever helped liberal college kids and the working poor.

The Census wasn't created by Obama, it's done every 10 years. I bet it boosted the economy in 1980 just as much as it may be doing now. These jobs are providing an in-depth look at our demographics, which while we are overspending for the information, the information does have value.

|Zach|
06-08-2010, 10:19 AM
Sorry, I assumed the " GREAT ZACH " would understand that the article, IMHO was bias by my reading. Based on the fact that most news outlets are bias to one side or the other and the way the current administration and Liberals are using it to push their agenda. I did, I really thought you of all people would understand with your wisdom and knowledge. How did I miss that one ?:doh!:

FTR, I read the article and felt it was bias.



And when you tried to back up your claim of bias for this article your supporting argument was a fact given in the article. Plain as day. Thats what makes this whole thing so funny.

FTR, I don't need to, I seen it the 1st time, just as the #'s of jobs that are reported by the media to make Obama look better that what his failed plan is doing. But you probably do not by that argument,you are in line of thinking everything is OK,the economy is great and the country is on the right track to job growth, Right ?

You don't like Obama or what is going on? That is fine. It doesn't give you leeway to make things up. You have never quite understood that you are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts. But who cares right? It is more fun just blaming others because your company\industry sucks.

InChiefsHell
06-08-2010, 10:25 AM
On a side note, why does it take half a million people to do the census? If there are around 300 million people in the US, that means that it takes one census worker for every 600 people counted.

It's called busy work. If the government does it, it takes 4 times the amount of people than if they just hired it out to say Gallup or something. But, they made some jobs, so that's good...:rolleyes:

cannon1988
06-08-2010, 12:00 PM
The 19th,20th and 21th century governments will gladly take away rights in exchange for your 'security'.

When was the 21th century?

Also, where would we have been without the federal government? It's quite possible that during WW2, without protection of our collective security, we may have fallen prey to Hitler's fascism.

ROYC75
06-08-2010, 12:04 PM
And when you tried to back up your claim of bias for this article your supporting argument was a fact given in the article. Plain as day. Thats what makes this whole thing so funny.


You don't like Obama or what is going on? That is fine. It doesn't give you leeway to make things up. You have never quite understood that you are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts. But who cares right? It is more fun just blaming others because your company\industry sucks.

Your opinion in the thread title made it sound as though the economy is improving, most states are doing well and that people are back to work. I still call out, it's false IMHO. It's fabricated to make it sound like the Obama administration is correcting the problems from his failed stimulus plans.


What's funny is you take one article and intersect that it's the truth, that it is as good as written in gold. All one has to do is look around and see we have a very long ways to go to get out of the deeper financial debt Obama has created.

You and the article speaks of a few states. That's great news, that's like a few families that have the financial restraints and finances to endure the recession compared to many families who do not. By that comparison, I could say the country was on the way to recover, or make the statement that you made . But all one has to do is look around and see how hard it is on the American people. I have a pretty good vision of it, I see daily the number of freight being moved, where the construction is moving and where it isn't. What warehouses are stocking supplies and who is holding back for the fear of a double dip recession. I see large trucking companies that at this time if you have a truck, you are getting a very good earnings per mile ratio due to the shortage of drivers/trucks on the road. But the big companies that have the resources will not increase fleet sizes due to the winter work shortage and the fear of the double dip recession. Plus the new regulations this year by our federal government on the CSA2010. It's not as rosie as you want to make it there poung man.

Since you are such a great Obama supporter, please give us your opinion when the country will get back on track and when the deficit will be balanced. With your great wisdom and knowledge of the Obama plan, please advise when we can become debt free again, surely he has a plan for all of this, right ?

Calcountry
06-08-2010, 12:36 PM
Where do the census workers buy their food, clothing, automobiles, housing, etc? In the public or private sector?They probably receive WIC, from their old lady that they knocked up. They probably receive that cute credit card that has credits show up in it every month so they don't have to suffer the stigma of paying with food stamps anymore. They probably get unemployment compensation extensions too.

Rock a bama dude.

Calcountry
06-08-2010, 12:42 PM
Obama flow chart for executive decision making:

100Delay
200Delay
300Have a speech with teleprompters
400Delay, if that don't work, show up for a photo op.
500Delay, hope it goes away, or another situation arises that presses for the publics attention
600Goto 100

|Zach|
06-08-2010, 02:19 PM
Your opinion in the thread title made it sound as though the economy is improving, most states are doing well and that people are back to work. I still call out, it's false IMHO. It's fabricated to make it sound like the Obama administration is correcting the problems from his failed stimulus plans.



It pointed to positive signs...and lists why there are some signs that they think are good with facts. It is all right there...it isn't saying anything more then what it lists. You are calling it bias for disagreeing with things it isn't trying to say.

Again, it is like me saying I think the Chiefs are doing some decent things in training camp and you calling me bias because I think the Chiefs are going to win the Superbowl.

I would look at you and say where the hell did that come from? Just like I have done in this thread.



[B]What's funny is you take one article and intersect that it's the truth that it is as good as written in gold.
Do you know what the word intersect means?


All one has to do is look around and see we have a very long ways to go to get out of the deeper financial debt Obama has created.


Nobody thinks that we don't have a long ways to go in recovery. Literally. Nobody. And, I disagree it is Obama who put us in this situation.


You and the article speaks of a few states. That's great news, that's like a few families that have the financial restraints and finances to endure the recession compared to many families who do not. By that comparison, I could say the country was on the way to recover, or make the statement that you made . But all one has to do is look around and see how hard it is on the American people. I have a pretty good vision of it, I see daily the number of freight being moved, where the construction is moving and where it isn't. What warehouses are stocking supplies and who is holding back for the fear of a double dip recession. I see large trucking companies that at this time if you have a truck, you are getting a very good earnings per mile ratio due to the shortage of drivers/trucks on the road. But the big companies that have the resources will not increase fleet sizes due to the winter work shortage and the fear of the double dip recession. Plus the new regulations this year by our federal government on the CSA2010. It's not as rosie as you want to make it there poung man.


Again, nobody is saying things are completely fine. Absolutely nobody. If you expected this President to make things completely fantastic then I feel bad for you. That is no way to go through life thinking the government is going to be the ones to save your company or industry.

Get smarter, better, do things in a new way, or get out of that business.


Since you are such a great Obama supporter, please give us your opinion when the country will get back on track and when the deficit will be balanced. With your great wisdom and knowledge of the Obama plan, please advise when we can become debt free again, surely he has a plan for all of this, right ?

I don't have all these answers, I am a professional photographer. I don't make a living having all these answers. I also don't pretend to know everything as much as you love propping me up as some villain. I voted for officials who are put in different positions to do these things. At the presidential level I had two choices. I absolutely don't love everything my choice has done but that is just part of being in a system like ours. I don't regret making the choice in the least.

King_Chief_Fan
06-08-2010, 02:58 PM
Again, nobody is saying things are completely fine. Absolutely nobody. If you expected this President to make things completely fantastic then I feel bad for you. That is no way to go through life thinking the government is going to be the ones to save your company or industry.

Get smarter, better, do things in a new way, or get out of that business.

.

why would anyone think that....hmmmm GM, Chrysler, Finance companies.
Precedent has been set.

|Zach|
06-08-2010, 03:07 PM
why would anyone think that....hmmmm GM, Chrysler, Finance companies.
Precedent has been set.

And anyone "counting" on that deserves to have their business fail.

Come what may.

RJ
06-08-2010, 04:55 PM
When was the 21th century?




Right after the 20nd. Duh!!

cannon1988
06-08-2010, 09:26 PM
Right after the 20nd. Duh!!

Ah ha! Thanks for clearing that up.

BigChiefFan
06-09-2010, 06:49 AM
It's called busy work. If the government does it, it takes 4 times the amount of people than if they just hired it out to say Gallup or something. But, they made some jobs, so that's good...:rolleyes:

I'm still trying to figure out how jobs are created, when using tax payers money on temp jobs. Another good point by you. Time to SHRINK federal government, not expand it.

Velvet_Jones
06-09-2010, 02:12 PM
On a side note, why does it take half a million people to do the census? If there are around 300 million people in the US, that means that it takes one census worker for every 600 people counted.

Its because the government is so efficient. Just ask Direckshun and Banyon - which probably work for the government in the Department of Making Shit Work More bBetter.

cannon1988
06-09-2010, 02:51 PM
I'm still trying to figure out how jobs aren't created, when using tax payers money on permanent jobs. Another bad point by you. Time to EXPAND federal government, not shrink it.

I fixed some of the flaws within your statement here.

KC Dan
06-09-2010, 03:00 PM
I fixed some of the flaws within your statement here.You're And Idiot

cannon1988
06-09-2010, 03:01 PM
You're And Idiot

Subtle irony...

KC Dan
06-09-2010, 03:07 PM
Subtle irony...if you were not such a troll, you'd know the history of the post. f'n nubes.....

cannon1988
06-09-2010, 06:42 PM
if you were not such a troll, you'd know the history of the post. f'n nubes.....

I actually do know that you've attempted to use what you know as a Chiefsplanet meme. This is the irony I'm talking about. The correct usage of such a meme, if not bastardized by this hell-hole would consist of the following:

You, sir, are and idiot.

KC Dan
06-10-2010, 11:37 AM
I actually do know that you've attempted to use what you know as a Chiefsplanet meme. This is the irony I'm talking about. The correct usage of such a meme, if not bastardized by this hell-hole would consist of the following:

You, sir, are and idiot.
You sir, are correct. My apologies...I'm a bastard and being such will bastardize at will:)