Can someone please explain to me this math?
08-16-2011, 02:24 PM
#1
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,493
Total Cats: 4,080
Can someone please explain to me this math?
Obama's Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack: "Well, obviously, it's putting people to work. Which is why we're going to have some interesting things in the course of the forum this morning. Later this morning, we're going have a press conference with Secretary Mavis and Secretary Chu to announce something that's never happened in this country -- something that we think is exciting in terms of job growth. I should point out, when you talk about the SNAP program or the foot stamp program, you have to recognize that it's also an economic stimulus. Every dollar of SNAP benefits generates $1.84 in the economy in terms of economic activity. If people are able to buy a little more in the grocery store, someone has to stock it, package it, shelve it, process it, ship it. All of those are jobs. It's the most direct stimulus you can get in the economy during these tough times."
there is no boost to economy it just redistributes it. The pie is sliced differently, but it's not any bigger.
Reply
0
0
08-16-2011, 02:28 PM
#2
Because government is so efficient that they actually add value to each dollar just by touching it. In fact, the more bureaucrats that touch a given dollar, the greater its value. If only we could figure out a way to siphon every dollar in the economy through our government, we would be infinitely rich and never have to work for ourselves again.
Reply
0
0
08-16-2011, 02:35 PM
#4
I'm a terrible person
iTrader: (19)
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Arizona
Posts: 7,174
Total Cats: 180
It makes no sense.
Let's see, why doesn't the government just give everyone $10000 dollars. Then when we spend the money, $8400 dollars is generated from the economy. Resulting in $18400.
INFINITE MONEY!!!!
Let's see, why doesn't the government just give everyone $10000 dollars. Then when we spend the money, $8400 dollars is generated from the economy. Resulting in $18400.
INFINITE MONEY!!!!
Reply
0
0
08-16-2011, 02:38 PM
#5
I'm Miserable!
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 583
Total Cats: -1
Obama does not evaluate finances using conventional math such as 2 + 2 = 4.
Instead he uses images and feel-good emotions…
Your gut feel is correct.
I think there is a good chance this will be an exceptionally ugly election. And that fake emergencies or temporary economic prop-ups will be used. CNN even had someone noting that a fake alien invasion would invigorate and unify everyone, wow. The guy said it would fix the entire economy in 18 months.
Instead he uses images and feel-good emotions…
Your gut feel is correct.
I think there is a good chance this will be an exceptionally ugly election. And that fake emergencies or temporary economic prop-ups will be used. CNN even had someone noting that a fake alien invasion would invigorate and unify everyone, wow. The guy said it would fix the entire economy in 18 months.
Reply
0
0
08-16-2011, 02:41 PM
#6
Step 1: Print enough currency to cover current national debt. Current Debt: SOLVED.
Step 2: Continue printing currency at a rate high enough to cover future budget deficits. Future Debt: SOLVED.
Step 3. Take all unemployed, divide into two groups. Group 1 digs ditches, Group 2 fills them in. If anyone gets bored, they are allowed to switch groups if they can find someone to switch with them. Unemployment: SOLVED.
Step 4. Create free national healthcare. If revenue cannot cover expenditures, ration services. If revenue still does not cover expenditures, see Step 2. Healthcare: SOLVED.
Step 5. ???
Step 6. INFINITE RICHES AND HEALTH.
Step 2: Continue printing currency at a rate high enough to cover future budget deficits. Future Debt: SOLVED.
Step 3. Take all unemployed, divide into two groups. Group 1 digs ditches, Group 2 fills them in. If anyone gets bored, they are allowed to switch groups if they can find someone to switch with them. Unemployment: SOLVED.
Step 4. Create free national healthcare. If revenue cannot cover expenditures, ration services. If revenue still does not cover expenditures, see Step 2. Healthcare: SOLVED.
Step 5. ???
Step 6. INFINITE RICHES AND HEALTH.
Reply
0
0
08-16-2011, 03:42 PM
#7
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,493
Total Cats: 4,080
Last year, Seattle Mayor Mike McGinn announced the city had won a coveted $20 million federal grant to invest in weatherization. The unglamorous work of insulating crawl spaces and attics had emerged as a silver bullet in a bleak economy – able to create jobs and shrink carbon footprint – and the announcement came with great fanfare.
McGinn had joined Vice President Joe Biden in the White House to make it. It came on the eve of Earth Day. It had heady goals: creating 2,000 living-wage jobs in Seattle and retrofitting 2,000 homes in poorer neighborhoods.
But more than a year later, Seattle's numbers are lackluster. As of last week, only three homes had been retrofitted and just 14 new jobs have emerged from the program. Many of the jobs are administrative, and not the entry-level pathways once dreamed of for low-income workers. Some people wonder if the original goals are now achievable.
McGinn had joined Vice President Joe Biden in the White House to make it. It came on the eve of Earth Day. It had heady goals: creating 2,000 living-wage jobs in Seattle and retrofitting 2,000 homes in poorer neighborhoods.
But more than a year later, Seattle's numbers are lackluster. As of last week, only three homes had been retrofitted and just 14 new jobs have emerged from the program. Many of the jobs are administrative, and not the entry-level pathways once dreamed of for low-income workers. Some people wonder if the original goals are now achievable.
Look how the wealth multiples by 1.83.
so much for your digging ditches theory.
Reply
0
0
08-16-2011, 03:49 PM
#9
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,493
Total Cats: 4,080
NOOO the private market would just sit on the wealth and do nothing with it. 
and honestly, 2000 jobs? why not 6 jobs and a new job site each and every day?
and honestly, 2000 jobs? why not 6 jobs and a new job site each and every day?
Reply
0
0
08-17-2011, 01:01 PM
#15
I'm Miserable!
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 583
Total Cats: -1
We could also use school district strategies from the Atlanta region. The teachers simply erase the incorrect answers and then fill in the correct ones. That way the test results look better. And the kid's self esteem is not bruised. ;-)
Reply
0
0
08-17-2011, 11:18 PM
#16
So if the government is claiming that 84 extra cents of value was created for every dollar that it redistributed, then it is obviously more value created than the private sector could have done for ever dollar not taxed, right? Otherwise, it would have been absolutely silly to tax that dollar anyways, and we all know that the government must be outstandingly smart with money...
Obama must think that rich people are making money and stashing it in banks somewhere, just to sit on that money. He obviously thinks that they don't spend the money they earn, and that this is why our country is out of money... just think about it...all those evil rich people trying to collapse this country...
Obama, profits are good for the economy - the amount of profit that a company can generate is an exact measure of the amount of "economic stimulus" that said company has on the economy. "gross revenue" is only a measure of wealth distribution. The amount of profit that an employee makes at this company is again an exact measure of the amount of "economic stimulus" that said employee has on the economy. The more profit that an individual or a company makes, the more economically *stimulating* that individual or company must absolutely be. Why are we punishing our most economically prized entities with such a ridiculous tax rate? They are the ones that are able to turn your $1.00 into $100.00 with ease, but you're taking that dollar away from them and giving it to the peole who are economic "bottomless pits" - these people are in turn taking the rich peoples dollar and turning it in to a few measley pennies.
Using the same argument for profit=an exact measure of economic stimulus, consider this. The federal government has had a total "profit" to the tune of about (-$15 Trillion)... over the past few decades... hmm, I wonder where our economic depression stems from...
Obama must think that rich people are making money and stashing it in banks somewhere, just to sit on that money. He obviously thinks that they don't spend the money they earn, and that this is why our country is out of money... just think about it...all those evil rich people trying to collapse this country...
Obama, profits are good for the economy - the amount of profit that a company can generate is an exact measure of the amount of "economic stimulus" that said company has on the economy. "gross revenue" is only a measure of wealth distribution. The amount of profit that an employee makes at this company is again an exact measure of the amount of "economic stimulus" that said employee has on the economy. The more profit that an individual or a company makes, the more economically *stimulating* that individual or company must absolutely be. Why are we punishing our most economically prized entities with such a ridiculous tax rate? They are the ones that are able to turn your $1.00 into $100.00 with ease, but you're taking that dollar away from them and giving it to the peole who are economic "bottomless pits" - these people are in turn taking the rich peoples dollar and turning it in to a few measley pennies.
Using the same argument for profit=an exact measure of economic stimulus, consider this. The federal government has had a total "profit" to the tune of about (-$15 Trillion)... over the past few decades... hmm, I wonder where our economic depression stems from...
Reply
0
0
08-17-2011, 11:48 PM
#17
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,026
Total Cats: 6,592
I wouldn't consider myself "rich" from the point of view of the IRS codes, although I do make a fair amount of money for somebody my age who doesn't have a Ph.D and isn't an investment banker. I spend some of that money on food, rent, cars, and so on, however the majority of my post-tax income goes straight into the "bank." I don't spend nearly as much money (either in real terms or as a percentage of income) as most of the people I know who earn less than I do on "frivolous" things such as dining out, vacations, new cars, entertainment, Starbucks, electronic gadgets, etc. The same is true of most people I know who would be considered "reasonably well-off."
This is, in most cases, a vital element in how "rich" people become rich in the first place. Not everyone who owns a summer home and a nice boat earns $1m / year, a lot of them simply don't "waste" nearly as much money as is considered normal by the vast majority of Americans. Two of my three uncles on my father's side owned yachts and condos on a private island. All three of them were equal partners in the same textile business. One had a reputation for frivolous spending, the other two had a reputation for frugality. One guess as to which one of them didn't have the condo and the yacht.
Once you cross a certain threshold (and you don't realize it until well afterwards) money in large quantities sort of loses its tangible meaning and becomes nothing more than some numbers on a spreadsheet. When you find yourself in that position, it's an indication that you've been doing things right. I am no more likely today to run out and blow $5k on the ultimate home theater system or $40k on a new car or $200k on a house than I'd have been 15 years ago when doing so would have meant taking out a loan. The number on the spreadsheet just keeps getting larger and larger, a little bit at a time. Someday, when I retire, it'll mean something tangible. Until then, it's just a few bytes of data.
In other words, some folks are just predisposed to frugality. On the whole, those people tend to become "rich" at a disproportionately high rate as compared to the population as a whole. This reminds me of my great uncle Howard Trotter (we're shifting to my mother's side of the family, now.) Uncle Howard was a country dentist who didn't earn a huge amount of money, and he & Aunt Geneva lived a fairly simplistic lifestyle. One car, small house, nothing fancy. Their "vacation home" was a doublewide at a trailer park in Homestead, FL. When they passed away a few months apart (in their early 80s, having been retired and living off of their savings for quite a long time by that point) the family was quite surprised to learn that they had remaining assets of slightly over $1M, and that was $1M in 1987 money, when that amount of cash actually meant something.
I don't really understand why people such as this should be penalized.
Reply
0
0
