Congratulations, House Republicans!

Simply put, even elected officials of government are 'jobs.' They earn income and benefits.

No the core question had to do with the economic stimulus (or lack of it) attendant to government spending. The specific issue here had to do with the fact that taking X dollars of disposable income from consumers through taxation and then replacing it with X dollars of "government programs" yields zero net addition to consumer demand, and zero net contribution to economic activity.

Parados argued that some government programs like, building roads, are investments that facilitate other economic activity. I agreed, but noted that private sector investments do exactly the same but generally with much greater efficiency, and therefore much greater return on investment.

Having lost that point, Parados decided the issue was whether government spending "produced jobs" and asserted that all (without qualification) government spending produces jobs - a proposition for which he has offered no proof or support, preferring instead to sit back and assault the examples of anyone fool enough to play his childish game.

I also noted that we could then give everyone in the country a government "job" and then try to pay for it by taking a portion of their incomes through taxation. We could see how long that lasted. He didn't respond to that, preferring to play gotcha rather than think about the matter at hand.

Insults. Prove it.

Say that again in four simple declaritive sentences. I really don't think you've ment to say that government stimulus has never had a good effect on jobs or the economy!

When government spending goes to payroll, it does stimulate demand. Even income earned by government workers spend money in the market place that increases demand that might otherwise not exist.

Military pay is government funded. They buy consumer goods as well as their civilian family and friends.

To say government spending doesn't impact the economy just isn't true.

That could be, George, but my response was very specific. It said: "But Parados is correct. You have yet to provide a single government program that creates no jobs."

Bottom line is that CJ has yet to provide a single government program that creates no jobs.

If you are saying that Parados was able to deflect CJ from something CJ (or you) wanted to discuss to something he wanted to discuss...

...that is a different topic entirely.

I stand by my comment to CJ...and to the challenge:

Why don't you do so...and prove him wrong? (I think I know why; I suspect Parados knows why...and I am almost certain you know why!)

I beg to differ on the core question. It was about your implication that government programs created no jobs.

It boils down to a question of where the money comes from. Borrowed money according to everyone will create jobs now, but it will according to most cost us jobs latter. If borrowing money to make jobs is the goal then WW2 is the benchmark, and we get far fewer jobs now for the borrowed buck then we did then. Government funded through taxes according to the Right will cost jobs, though this has not been proven to my satisfaction.

It needs to come from those who benefit most from it. Corporations, the 1%.

Of course he is. But does it do anything to improve America. He doesn't give a **** about this country, and knows damn well the waste in government is killing us. He is a shill that gloats while the country tears itself apart.

You must have driven your mother nuts right with that "he's right but he's wrong" crap. Parados is right, like you finally admitted. The rest of that is little screed meaningless and unrelated bicker.

Of course, Parados is correct.

Glad we both agree on that.

Pardos is not correct. The original question was fairly clearly about the net economic effect of Federal spending: i.e. whether the net economic effect of Federal spending involved a positive effect on job creation. This is a popular theme lately pursued by those who argue for consumer demand as the leading economic driver in these things. It is certainly a factor, but only one of several in a very complex and not fully understood process about which economists argue incessantly.

In any event it is fairly obvious that Federal tax collections reduce potential consumer demand by the amount of tax collected. If that money is in turn used in domestic Federal spending the demand is replaced, at best, on a dollar for dollar basis, so the net effect is zero.

Parados also argued that if the money is "invested" in roads or other like infrastructure then the beneficial effect can be greater than in , for example, merely creating more useless drones working for the government. In that he is certainly correct. Economists call this the investment multiplier. However, because the private sector is generally more efficient in its investment spending and more focused on the economic returns involved the effect for private sector investment is generally greater.

If increased Federal spending is funded by additional debt, then an additional factor enters the picture. That is the more or less permanent drag on the economy of interest payments on the debt and a generally upward pressure on interest rates caused by this increased demand for investment dollars by the government, thereby raising the cost of almost all investment public or private. The effects of this are hard to estimate, but all negative.

Temporary boosts to economic activity can indeed be attained by deficit spending, but this game has its very finite limiteds as the Greeks discovered a few years ago and the French are finding out now.

That assumes that every dollar not taxed is a dollar spent. That, however, is a very doubtful proposition.

Explaining Chicago school of economics is going to go way over gob1's head. He also believes, "all inflation is bad", too. Government investment is the only trickle down that actually works, besides a fair living wage.

What are the other possibilities?
1. The tax could be paid from personal savings, leaving income and spending unaffected. That however would reduce investment capital by the same amount.
2. The tax could be paid through private borrowing, but that would add to the market competition for capital and create upward pressure on interest rates, raising the cost of other investment capital.

Saying that the straightforward explanation is a "doubtful proposition" doesn't add much to the conversation. Please be specific.

Taxes in any form withdraw money from the private economy. That is not to suggest that taxes are necessarily a bad thing. Rather that they , and government spending, are not generally a panacea for all social and economic problems. Government can redistribute wealth effectively, but it doesn't do much in the way of producing it.

Putting money into interest bearing accounts adds to inflation as does the lending of it with interest. Taxing money puts money back into circulation adds to the robustness of an economy. Charging interest is a tax, too. Why is capitalist taxing good and governmental taxing bad, particularly when corporate taxing hurts most of us and governmental taxing helps all of us. Name one wealthy person or corporation that has ever been taxed into penury.

Taking money out of the Federal Reserve doesn't take money out of circulation, it adds to the circulation of capital. This is good for businesses.

I think you are very confused. Lending and saving have opposite effects. Savings increase the supply of available capital and reduce interest rates. Interest and taxes are very different things.

So you are arguing that because Federal spending doesn't have as large a positive impact than it is a negative impact. That isn't true at all. A positive impact is a positive impact. Federal spending creates jobs. Arguing that it doesn't create as many jobs as another kind of spending is nit picking. (A word you seem to like to use on others.)

Government has a place in spending on items that the private sector won't or can't spend money on. Let's take your example where you think you proved government was inefficient. If the government hadn't been willing to spend the money to hire you there would have been no spending on the entrances to the bridge because no private company would have been capable of doing it on their own without the government. You proved government created jobs when they hired your company. The bridge is necessary for thousands of people to get to work thus showing the government spending has a great multiplier.

The government should borrow money in a down turn and then pay off the debt when the economy is doing well. Instead both parties have been willing to spend like drunken sailors during good times. In my opinion the GOP is worse when it comes to drunken spending because they throw money at projects that don't produce a long term investment that will have an investment multiplier.