The $287k job

[eridanus]

When examining the budget, there are 3 elephants in the room. Well, only one is truly an elephant; the other two are now noticed and discussed regularly so they're only elephants in the sense that they're a HUGE part of the budget.

The third elephant is, of course, often considered sacred by those who continually complain about the other 2 elephants. There are various reasons for this. If one was cynical, one might think that this is because the 3rd elephant supplies the pensions for those who complain regularly about the other 2 elephants. In other words, the complainers don't want to bite the hand that feeds them. This is understandable and somewhat hypocritical.

Ah, but we are not cynical. This is not a political post. It's simply curious that, when considering the debt and deficit and taxes, one of the major budgetary items is ignored. It's like being hungry in India and wondering where to get the next meal...as a cow strolls by the hut.

 

[BigNick]

Picking the total cost of something - which is rarely the cash outlay, then dividing it by some essentially arbitrary number to come up with some scary-sounding other number, is a standard bit of entry-level political discourse. Everyone does it, whether it's people on the right demonstrating government waste or people on the left complaining about how much Goldman Sachs executives make.

I find that it rarely adds much to the debate. As others have pointed out, we don't know what the alternative would have been.

I remember when the bailout was being discussed in Congress, some members were against the whole thing for purely ideological decisions. They gave the impression that they were so principled that they were prepared to let the economy collapse, if necessary, so that no federal intervention would sully their voting record. I would bet money that they had all carefully checked first that the measures would in fact pass, thus enabling them to appear as mavericks without actually taking the risk. Again, a common tactic of politicians, allowing them to be right after the event.

See also financial pundits who say "Buy IBM" in January, "Sell IBM" in February, and "See, I was right about IBM last winter" in October.

 

[lets-retire]

Great math. The problem is that evaluating the value of the stimulus program as a function of the cost per job created/saved is an artificial measure. If I remember correctly, back in the fall of 2008 virtually everyone from right to left believed that absent the stimulus the entire financial system would have locked up tighter than a drum causing an absolute collapse far worse than what we have experienced. I don't know whether that is true -- but neither do any of you! Whether you agree that we needed a stimulus or agree that it was the first step on the way to socialist madness is essentially just that -- a matter of belief.

Yes, this thread belongs in the political/religious section.

I believe what most people supported was the TARP program, not the stimulus package. The right for the most part didn't want the stimulus passed, but they did support TARP.

 

[FinanceDude]

I believe what most people supported was the TARP program, not the stimulus package. The right for the most part didn't want the stimulus passed, but they did support TARP.

I was not in favor of either. Regardless of the hype posted on by a few posters here, I doub the credit markets were going to collapse under the weight of leverages CDOs..........