Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (535093)	12/7/2009 7:17:23 PM
From: tejek	1 Recommendation Respond to of 1586536

This is hilarious.......SNL's skit on Tiger Woods: hulu.com

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (535093)	12/7/2009 7:51:11 PM
From: Road Walker	1 Recommendation Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1586536

RW, cost per job "created or saved" is $246,436, according to a Reuters blog entry: According to "Ed". According to "Joe" we created a zillion jobs at $1 each. I'm slowly disappearing... I read less than 1 in 100 posts on this thread. You guys are so good at opposition to everything. Can't remember the last policy proposal you offered. You, now, are even opposed to Bush. Amazing.

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (535093)	12/10/2009 8:46:58 PM
From: SilentZ	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1586536

>Bet you could have spent that money better than the federal government ... 1. That includes all of the costs. The point of stimulus isn't just to save jobs; it's to save jobs with people actually doing productive things. So portions of the spending might be materials for an infrastructure project, or the costs of office space for that person; it's not all getting paid to the worker. 2. And besides, what's the period for the spending? If, say, half of the spending for one particular job is to dedicate a $50K or $60K salary plus benefits annually over the next two years, that could be $150K total, and then giving the person office space can cost $10K over two years and then associated materials and such make up the rest, that doesn't sound inefficient. But the bottom line is that if you gave that money to private business, why would they use it to create jobs? The problem is that there's not enough demand in order to give the impetus for private business to create more supply. -Z