ivan Posted February 17, 2011 Author Share Posted February 17, 2011 I figure I can eventually pick up a cheap Crown Vic out of the deal. nice - freak out the friends each time you pull in the driveway - plain crowns vics = old fucks or undercover cops Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 Multiplier Effect Calculates Economics of State Layoffs Published: Wednesday, January 26, 2011 1:46 PM CST Deb Courson AUSTIN, Texas - State budget plans call for eliminating up to 10,000 state jobs and 100,000 positions in public schools. But a budget analyst warns that cutting public-sector jobs results in the loss of private-sector jobs, too. Economists call it the "multiplier effect." Eva Deluna Castro, senior budget analyst with the Center for Public Policy Priorities, explains the economic ramifications when public employees get pink slips. "There is a multiplier effect. When you eliminate a public-sector job, 2.4 jobs are lost." Deluna Castro estimates that the total of public and private jobs lost under the state House budget proposal would be about 23,000. Add to that the school district positions being defunded and she says the final cost to the economy could be 263,000 lost jobs. job killing regressives Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucky Larry Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 (edited) I think budgets should have some resemblance to reality. Obviously, like over the counter derivatives, it does not. Therefore 'balanced budget' is a axe-me-moron. Print more worthless paper? Edited February 20, 2011 by Lucky Larry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevetimetravlr Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 . "There is a multiplier effect. When you eliminate a public-sector job, 2.4 jobs are lost." What a crock! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glassgowkiss Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 Budget Balanced! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattp Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 That's interesting, glasgow, though not really new. Entitlements and "defense" are what we need to cut, while busting unions or cutting NPR and heating oil for the elderly will not get us there. But one correction should be added. Social security is not part of the deficit. The budget hawks who voted for massive tax breaks and two very expensive wars hate social security but it is not part of the problem. It is part of their "solution" because it is part of their solution to - wait, what was the problem again? Jobs? Economy? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glassgowkiss Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 Social security is not part of the deficit. Yes you are correct. Initially it was a fund, now it is easily money piggy bank- Reagan started the raids and GB finished. He did it mostly by giving away the "tax refunds", which was not a tax surplus, but SS, which was finally on track. Same fuckers, who screwed the economy in the first place are trying to tell us that they know how to fix it. Idiocracy was not a futuristic film, it's happening now and lowest most common denominators- FW like rule. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.