You Cannot Win An Election With Strong Disapprovals Like This

[Torie]

And there you have it!  Thanks Tom Wolfe, from whom I purloined. 

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I'm not being difficult - but I'm curious as someone whose career is public policy development and implementation - because you work in finance... we should sit quietly to you and just listen?

I'm sure that's not your point, but it does sound like that.

Nope but to be quite honest with you since you first mentioned was your career a few days ago I've been secretely waiting for you to weigh in on something in that arena so I could start firing off questions to you. Its not right though for me to just start throwing random questions at you until you initiate something.

I guess that would be the sort of example I meant by what I said above.

I am curious what the intent of the questioning is... but you are welcome to PM me.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Gray Davis got re-elected with similar approvals.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

You'll have to forgive me, but there was a brilliant post which argued very well that even if Obama's disapprovals are low that doesn't mean they will just vote for ANYONE the GOP puts up.

[Politico]

In this scenario I have no preference either way and with both I'd be fine.  I have no problems with PPP

Skip the details and get to the point.  What is your point, you are clearly trying to make one.  Either make your point or I'm done with you.  We've been going over back and forth all day and I just want to hear your point.

What is it?

So you wouldn't want the government to save the extra $10k?

And what do you mean by PPP?

Public Private Partnerships

In Dallas one of the commuter rail lines that has been proposed has had an alternative funding solution presented as a PPP because the transit agency doesn't have the funds via taxes alone to construct it.  If that ever moves forward I would presume that at least some people would have some percentage of the cost of their employment borne by the tax payers and some by whatever private entity they go with.  I don't even know if there is a full proposal.  However DART (the transit authority for most of Dallas County) simply doesn't have the money to move forward without some sort of external money source such as a grant from the federal government or as part of a PPP.

If there are no private sources of money - the government foots the entire bill
If the government can't afford it alone - go with the private source along with the the government
If neither can afford it and it is a critical project then it would probably go on the national debt
If the private company can afford it and if the government can then I really have no preference, if I were a Representative I would vote yes on both in the hope that at least one gets passed



Now the point must exist.  

I see usually when I see PPP I think Purchasing Power Parity.

But why would you have no preference between both options if the latter saves tax payer money to be spent on something else? Do you just not care if government money is wasted when it doesn't have to be? This is kind of a big sticking point before I move on.

I am with you on this debate, Wonkish. But I would add this concise fact that is so often overlooked among our friends on the left: In order for the government to give anybody anything, the government must take something from somebody (if they simply "print money" to "pay," they are still taking something from somebodies: lost purchasing power via inflation). In other words, all government spending is EVENTUALLY paid for by taxation on market activities and/or inflation upon society at large.

[Wonkish1]

The lesson here... don't try to challenge Wonkish... he'll out-write you, because his knowledge-base here is without comparison... apparently.

Well I mean who challenges someone who does something as career? I mean I would never walk up to a doctor and challenge them on the practice of medicine nor would I do it to lawyer or anybody else.

Lets say I was going to get into a discussion with a health liability PC guy about Tort reform, I would just shut up, listen, and ask questions that's it. Same for a school principal on a conversation about student discipline or even a climate scientist talking about global warming. In each case, shut up, listen, and ask questions.


The moment this country's voters became more concerned with maintaining their ideology vs. learning everything they could about how our world and country works is the moment this country really started developing problems. Nobody wants to learn anymore.

The basic facts are almost never subject to controversy except at the edge of knowledge. Were I to seek to know how to slice up a side of beef, then I would go to someone who knows how to slice up a side of beef. That would not be an attorney. If you are discussing history, then some facts are beyond question -- such as that Sir Winston Churchill was Prime Minister of the UK during the Blitz and that he spoke of the performance of the RAF against the Luftwaffe as "the finest hour". Good science ordinarily has enough qualifiers that until recently any good chemist could say that "within the available measurements bismuth-209 is stable" -- until measurements now available show that the isotope has a half-life of one billion times the estimated age of the universe. Both statements have been true, the first one now refuted only because the measurements have gotten better.  

Even something so loaded with value judgments as economics has points of undeniable reality -- such as the content of John Maynard Keynes wrote in his General Theory.  One can disagree with Keynes, but one cannot deny what he wrote.

When people get into positions of advocacy, then their credibility as experts vanishes. Advocacy positions almost always have personal values behind them, and those personal values are beyond proof. Look at it this way: much of my idea of how human nature operates results from what I observed as an infant -- such as whether people are trustworthy, whether one can eventually get what one wants and how, whether strangers (and which ones) are acceptable or to be shoved aside, whether one can be confident or must wallow in fear, and whether what one person gets implies a complete loss for someone else. There is a huge difference between being brought up as a Reform Jew and being brought up as a Pentecostal, between having drunken philanderers as parents or having  attentive parents,  whether "curiosity killed the cat" or a little curiosity is a nice thing, and between having been  brought up rich or poor.  Basic values are beyond proof.

One cannot prove that an extreme position of economic inequality is a good thing or it is a great horror.  One can't prove that the Holocaust, the Atlantic slave trade, or Stalin's forced collectivization was wrong. Extremely offensive and disgusting to someone who believes that life is precious and worthy of legal protection? Sure -- that is a consequence of what I believe due to values that someone inculcated in me even when I was nursing from a bottle. I have a large vocabulary of pejorative words appropriate for harsh judgment. "Bad" is just too vague.

Sure, there is specific learning to any trade or profession. Some professions require a vast store of knowledge not available elsewhere. For good reason, beauticians can start working on hair when eighteen or so; physicians are about 28 before they do serious medicine.

But know the limitations. If a physician appears on an advertisement for a non-prescription poll for headaches or sinus congestion, then his objectivity is gone. If an economist says "Vote for Smith", then he likely says more about what he believes in than about economics. If a climate scientist is in the employ of a large oil or coal company, then watch out.

This argument has always been bull$hit to me. I use to sit down with Keynesian professors and lay step by step by step a proof for them to see on a very, very narrow subject(which is what you have to do otherwise the width of the subject makes a conclusion reached in timely manner impossible). They would look down and look up and admit they had no way to wiggle their way out. I was in fact correct. The fact is that 2 + 2 = 4 whether you are a Democrat or a Republican, Conservative or Liberal, Keynesian or Austrian/Chicago/Supply(take your pick).

The truth is when your talking about a values type question like abortion, gay marriage, euthanasia, etc. well of course its a struggle between to opposing sides for the soul of the country. But in the case of education, healthcare, pensions(SS), etc. it isn't a question of values. There are ways that quantifiably improve the value of these systems. Value meaning higher quality for lower cost. And there are ways that don't or make things worse. And the answer to this obvious goal that everybody shares according to our would be friends on the left "we don't want to read data because it might be biased, wahh, wahh, wahh. We prefer to go do everything blind as a bat because we might be mislead by the ulterior motives of the person giving us the data". What a crock. Its the same damn line you see from just about every single one of them to cover up the fact that they haven't read d*ck and don't want you to help them try to make healthcare better or education better. Because for them its not actually about making it better. Its that they want to be stubborn in there method of doing it.

This is the same situation I've come across for more than a decade. The truth is that only maybe 5-10% actual activists would spend the time to actually go back and forth to improve upon their own ideas. The other 90-95% would be scared you might negatively influence them.

[Wonkish1]

In this scenario I have no preference either way and with both I'd be fine.  I have no problems with PPP

Skip the details and get to the point.  What is your point, you are clearly trying to make one.  Either make your point or I'm done with you.  We've been going over back and forth all day and I just want to hear your point.

What is it?

So you wouldn't want the government to save the extra $10k?

And what do you mean by PPP?

Public Private Partnerships

In Dallas one of the commuter rail lines that has been proposed has had an alternative funding solution presented as a PPP because the transit agency doesn't have the funds via taxes alone to construct it.  If that ever moves forward I would presume that at least some people would have some percentage of the cost of their employment borne by the tax payers and some by whatever private entity they go with.  I don't even know if there is a full proposal.  However DART (the transit authority for most of Dallas County) simply doesn't have the money to move forward without some sort of external money source such as a grant from the federal government or as part of a PPP.

If there are no private sources of money - the government foots the entire bill
If the government can't afford it alone - go with the private source along with the the government
If neither can afford it and it is a critical project then it would probably go on the national debt
If the private company can afford it and if the government can then I really have no preference, if I were a Representative I would vote yes on both in the hope that at least one gets passed



Now the point must exist.  

I see usually when I see PPP I think Purchasing Power Parity.

But why would you have no preference between both options if the latter saves tax payer money to be spent on something else? Do you just not care if government money is wasted when it doesn't have to be? This is kind of a big sticking point before I move on.

I am with you on this debate, Wonkish. But I would add this concise fact that is so often overlooked among our friends on the left: In order for the government to give anybody anything, the government must take something from somebody (if they simply "print money" to "pay," they are still taking something from somebodies: lost purchasing power via inflation). In other words, all government spending is EVENTUALLY paid for by taxation on market activities and/or inflation upon society at large.

Okay, I give you the play by play.

The question of 100% of government expenditure for a job
vs.
80% gov. and 20% by a private investor
Is a no brainer for most sane people. Why waste the extra 20% when someone else is willing to fork it in.


So how about 80% and 20% vs. 50% and 50%
Same why waste the other 30% of expenditure when someone else is willing to kick in the other 30%

So how about 20% from the government and 80% by the private investor. Yet again the same is true.

How about even 10% from the government and 90% by the private investor. Again yet again the same is true why waste any more government money when he's willing to fund 90% of the project.

Why pay $50k in government expenditure to create a new job when you could create a job for only $5k in expenditure? You wouldn't. And the person that agrees to that simple stream of thought would have just agreed by default that tax cuts are a much more efficient way to create jobs than government expenditure is. You get more bang for your buck.

Meanwhile, why make 1 owner of 1 construction company much more wealthy when you decide to build that road, when you can make all job creators just marginally more wealthy? Seems a lot more fair to do the latter route. You don't pick winners and losers. And that is speaking from someone that knows wealthy folks that don't care what % taxes they pay because they are the beneficiary of government deals that have made them very wealthy as a consequence. Also since the private sector is better at delegating work to be done that generates a higher return on overall society then why wouldn't you want them to employ the next several hundred employees, than having the a central planner do it who has no idea what is the next most demanded project.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I think you need to be careful to not paint all with one brush.

I'm not extremely economically left-wing, but still 'liberal' and see public private partnerships as a great thing, however, within my own recent experience on PPPs there are limits on both minimum investment levels and the nature of the investment.

[Wonkish1]

I think you need to be careful to not paint all with one brush.

I'm not extremely economically left-wing, but still 'liberal' and see public private partnerships as a great thing, however, within my own recent experience on PPPs there are limits on both minimum investment levels and the nature of the investment.

Hmm, I guess you didn't actually get the crux of the argument. PPPs wasn't the argument I was making. Read it again.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I do indeed.

But I don't get to reside in that theoretical world.

What you're asking is a) better than b) - but what I'm suggesting is that sometimes b) is not the practical option - but I support it when it is.

[LastVoter]

In this scenario I have no preference either way and with both I'd be fine.  I have no problems with PPP

Skip the details and get to the point.  What is your point, you are clearly trying to make one.  Either make your point or I'm done with you.  We've been going over back and forth all day and I just want to hear your point.

What is it?

So you wouldn't want the government to save the extra $10k?

And what do you mean by PPP?

Public Private Partnerships

In Dallas one of the commuter rail lines that has been proposed has had an alternative funding solution presented as a PPP because the transit agency doesn't have the funds via taxes alone to construct it.  If that ever moves forward I would presume that at least some people would have some percentage of the cost of their employment borne by the tax payers and some by whatever private entity they go with.  I don't even know if there is a full proposal.  However DART (the transit authority for most of Dallas County) simply doesn't have the money to move forward without some sort of external money source such as a grant from the federal government or as part of a PPP.

If there are no private sources of money - the government foots the entire bill
If the government can't afford it alone - go with the private source along with the the government
If neither can afford it and it is a critical project then it would probably go on the national debt
If the private company can afford it and if the government can then I really have no preference, if I were a Representative I would vote yes on both in the hope that at least one gets passed



Now the point must exist.  

I see usually when I see PPP I think Purchasing Power Parity.

But why would you have no preference between both options if the latter saves tax payer money to be spent on something else? Do you just not care if government money is wasted when it doesn't have to be? This is kind of a big sticking point before I move on.

I am with you on this debate, Wonkish. But I would add this concise fact that is so often overlooked among our friends on the left: In order for the government to give anybody anything, the government must take something from somebody (if they simply "print money" to "pay," they are still taking something from somebodies: lost purchasing power via inflation). In other words, all government spending is EVENTUALLY paid for by taxation on market activities and/or inflation upon society at large.

Okay, I give you the play by play.

The question of 100% of government expenditure for a job
vs.
80% gov. and 20% by a private investor
Is a no brainer for most sane people. Why waste the extra 20% when someone else is willing to fork it in.


So how about 80% and 20% vs. 50% and 50%
Same why waste the other 30% of expenditure when someone else is willing to kick in the other 30%

So how about 20% from the government and 80% by the private investor. Yet again the same is true.

How about even 10% from the government and 90% by the private investor. Again yet again the same is true why waste any more government money when he's willing to fund 90% of the project.

Why pay $50k in government expenditure to create a new job when you could create a job for only $5k in expenditure? You wouldn't. And the person that agrees to that simple stream of thought would have just agreed by default that tax cuts are a much more efficient way to create jobs than government expenditure is. You get more bang for your buck.

Meanwhile, why make 1 owner of 1 construction company much more wealthy when you decide to build that road, when you can make all job creators just marginally more wealthy? Seems a lot more fair to do the latter route. You don't pick winners and losers. And that is speaking from someone that knows wealthy folks that don't care what % taxes they pay because they are the beneficiary of government deals that have made them very wealthy as a consequence. Also since the private sector is better at delegating work to be done that generates a higher return on overall society then why wouldn't you want them to employ the next several hundred employees, than having the a central planner do it who has no idea what is the next most demanded project.

FTFY

[Wonkish1]

I do indeed.

But I don't get to reside in that theoretical world.

What you're asking is a) better than b) - but what I'm suggesting is that sometimes b) is not the practical option - but I support it when it is.

Look you support it when investors are willing to but if you follow down the line of the argument and you'll find that its obvious that investors will want to because they are the ones hiring for their own company.

So play by play!
If you support 20% kicked in by a private individual when you can, if you support 50% kicked in when you can, and you support 80% when its possible than why not cut the damn corporate tax rate and issue a reasonably large worker tax credit and the businesses that are close to hiring will tip over the end and hire. And the federal government then only ends up kicking in a fraction of the cost of a job instead of the cost of the whole job.

[Wonkish1]

FTFY

??

And look the context is that when a business makes several million dollars off a government deal they know they get more of those government deals if taxes rise.

I can assure that other business owners do care about what taxes they pay. I work in a smaller firm that would hire at least a couple more analysts if tax rates were slashed another 10%. And those people that would have a job if that were to happen, but will never know what they are missing at our firm...do care if that effects them being able to get work.

[Link]

Why pay $50k in government expenditure to create a new job when you could create a job for only $5k in expenditure? You wouldn't. And the person that agrees to that simple stream of thought would have just agreed by default that tax cuts are a much more efficient way to create jobs than government expenditure is. You get more bang for your buck.

So how do you propose the private sector create this new job?

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I do indeed.

But I don't get to reside in that theoretical world.

What you're asking is a) better than b) - but what I'm suggesting is that sometimes b) is not the practical option - but I support it when it is.

Look you support it when investors are willing to but if you follow down the line of the argument and you'll find that its obvious that investors will want to because they are the ones hiring for their own company.

So play by play!
If you support 20% kicked in by a private individual when you can, if you support 50% kicked in when you can, and you support 80% when its possible than why not cut the damn corporate tax rate and issue a reasonably large worker tax credit and the businesses that are close to hiring will tip over the end and hire. And the federal government then only ends up kicking in a fraction of the cost of a job instead of the cost of the whole job.

As I said, it's a painting everything with the same brush... sure there are going to be circumstances where what you propose would be workable - but not all projects would fit within those parameters.

Many government projects would not generate revenue... nor should they all, which would be an unattractive investment. But where it's appropriate sure.

[Wonkish1]

I do indeed.

But I don't get to reside in that theoretical world.

What you're asking is a) better than b) - but what I'm suggesting is that sometimes b) is not the practical option - but I support it when it is.

Look you support it when investors are willing to but if you follow down the line of the argument and you'll find that its obvious that investors will want to because they are the ones hiring for their own company.

So play by play!
If you support 20% kicked in by a private individual when you can, if you support 50% kicked in when you can, and you support 80% when its possible than why not cut the damn corporate tax rate and issue a reasonably large worker tax credit and the businesses that are close to hiring will tip over the end and hire. And the federal government then only ends up kicking in a fraction of the cost of a job instead of the cost of the whole job.

As I said, it's a painting everything with the same brush... sure there are going to be circumstances where what you propose would be workable - but not all projects would fit within those parameters.

Many government projects would not generate revenue... nor should they all, which would be an unattractive investment. But where it's appropriate sure.

Yeah again all I'm saying is that when the money is there its better than the alternative of the government footing the bill. But that isn't the point. The point is that if the goal is to have the least amount of government expenditure or loss of revenue than tax cuts are vastly more efficient than than stimulus spending whether that is PPPs or complete government expenditure.

So the argument that stimulus spending is an effective and efficient way to boost employment is a false one. Tax cuts are much more effective and I used the above list of questions to demonstrate that.

[LastVoter]

FTFY

??

And look the context is that when a business makes several million dollars off a government deal they know they get more of those government deals if taxes rise.

I can assure that other business owners do care about what taxes they pay. I work in a smaller firm that would hire at least a couple more analysts if tax rates were slashed another 10%. And those people that would have a job if that were to happen, but will never know what they are missing at our firm...do care if that effects them being able to get work.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=FTFY
Decreasing taxes won't increase hiring in almost all circumstances. If you were to attach strings to them, the effectiveness would be the same as if you just created government jobs.

Btw Obama's stimulus created jobs, but a lot less efficiently than expected. Bush's tax cuts... Didn't create a single job.

[Wonkish1]

FTFY

??

And look the context is that when a business makes several million dollars off a government deal they know they get more of those government deals if taxes rise.

I can assure that other business owners do care about what taxes they pay. I work in a smaller firm that would hire at least a couple more analysts if tax rates were slashed another 10%. And those people that would have a job if that were to happen, but will never know what they are missing at our firm...do care if that effects them being able to get work.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=FTFY
Decreasing taxes won't increase hiring in almost all circumstances. If you were to attach strings to them, the effectiveness would be the same as if you just created government jobs.

The government has to pay the cost of the whole cost of the job. Where the former the government doesn't have forgo much at all. There is no straight way you can deny that.

[Wonkish1]

FTFY

??

And look the context is that when a business makes several million dollars off a government deal they know they get more of those government deals if taxes rise.

I can assure that other business owners do care about what taxes they pay. I work in a smaller firm that would hire at least a couple more analysts if tax rates were slashed another 10%. And those people that would have a job if that were to happen, but will never know what they are missing at our firm...do care if that effects them being able to get work.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=FTFY
Decreasing taxes won't increase hiring in almost all circumstances. If you were to attach strings to them, the effectiveness would be the same as if you just created government jobs.

Btw Obama's stimulus created jobs, but a lot less efficiently than expected. Bush's tax cuts... Didn't create a single job.

Please explain to me the rationale about how tax cuts don't create any jobs?

[LastVoter]

FTFY

??

And look the context is that when a business makes several million dollars off a government deal they know they get more of those government deals if taxes rise.

I can assure that other business owners do care about what taxes they pay. I work in a smaller firm that would hire at least a couple more analysts if tax rates were slashed another 10%. And those people that would have a job if that were to happen, but will never know what they are missing at our firm...do care if that effects them being able to get work.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=FTFY
Decreasing taxes won't increase hiring in almost all circumstances. If you were to attach strings to them, the effectiveness would be the same as if you just created government jobs.

Btw Obama's stimulus created jobs, but a lot less efficiently than expected. Bush's tax cuts... Didn't create a single job.

Please explain to me the rationale about how tax cuts don't create any jobs?

The main premise is that no business is going to hire workers unless they will pay for themselves. Tax cut or not it will not change the bottom line(especially since a taxes are based of profit)
I'll make a distinction between buisness and corporate taxes

For Personal taxes for people with businesses:
They have nothing to do with their business.  Most rich people already save a part of their income, and a tax cut will just mean that they will be saving more money. That won't create jobs. Only poor will spend their tax cuts.
For Corporate taxes
I don't think I even need to argue this point, but it's the bottom line. Yes corporations go overseas, but most of them fill in a niche in their own country where they will not be able to keep functioning in another country because the products are usually region specific for most. Labor costs and infrastructure play a lot bigger role in outsourcing anyway(this is why manufacturing got moved to banana republics that had really basic needed infrastructure).
I am sure somebody could argue my point a lot better, I need to go to bed soon.

[Wonkish1]

For Corporate taxes
I don't think I even need to argue this point, but it's the bottom line. Yes corporations go overseas, but most of them fill in a niche in their own country where they will not be able to keep functioning in another country because the products are usually region specific for most. Labor costs and infrastructure play a lot bigger role in outsourcing anyway(this is why manufacturing got moved to banana republics that had really basic needed infrastructure).
I am sure somebody could argue my point a lot better, I need to go to bed soon.

Thanks for demonstrating that you don't know the first thing about how a business is ran. Your comment was nothing more than a smattering of random lines you picked up clearly from other people that have nothing to do with the question. Outsourcing has 0 to do with the question of whether or not tax cuts cause hiring domestically. Its a completely different issue. You just threw out the term "bottom line" in a random spot in the paragraph.

"This is why manufacturing got moved to banana republics that had really basic needed infrastructure" This is bull$hit and partially doesn't even make sense.


Yeah clearly you need someone else to argue it for you because you don't have a clue what your talking about. Its just another example of a person who comes out with an outrageous statement like "tax cuts don't create any jobs." And then attempts to back it up with something that just shows he has never spent more than 10 minutes thinking about this in his life.

Here's the truth:
Just about every business would expand if they didn't have a capital constraint such as limited retained earnings, high cost of capital, etc.) You lower taxes and you increase retained earnings. Retained earnings increase and you are more like to invest in capital improvements which include new hires. Plus in the case of a worker tax credit the company only gets the credit if he hires.


And this has nothing to do with the topic, but since you seemed intent on bringing it up in your meandering pile of filth you called an argument. Companies move overseas because of what is called "Cost of Doing Business"
Its a combination of these things
1) Cost of input costs(raw materials, spare parts, etc.)
2) Cost of capital equipment(whats the price of a piece of machinery, building, etc. in 1 country vs. another)
3) Cost of Labor(this ones obvious)
4) Cost of taxes(yes taxes are a big piece of cost of doing business)
5) Cost to make delivery(this one is a huge advantage to the United States because the worlds customers are close by cutting down on transportation costs---also why your "infrastructure" argument is bull$hit)
6) Currency risk
7) Regulations
Liability risk
9) Cost of energy
10) Access to capital markets(if its not a multinational)(another one we have a huge advantage in)
11) Quality of labor
12) And many more!

Now a company puts all of this together and they determine by looking at the numbers if it makes sense to outsource to another company based in another country, to set up their own outfit in a different country, or stay here.

So if the US government has created an environment where all the things on this list add up to a cheaper alternative than companies stop moving to other countries and you see a huge net increase in companies bringing jobs here. If the US government has created an environment where all the things on this list add up to way more than what can be done in a different country then companies start leaving.

And contrary to what you may think while Labor cost is a big factor it falls way, way, way short of trumping the rest of the list. A few of those items are just as important or even more important to certain companies. The fact is the United States has created an environment where a lot of these things are unnecessarily high relative to rest of the world so companies leave.

[WillK]

Why pay $50k in government expenditure to create a new job when you could create a job for only $5k in expenditure? You wouldn't.

A hypothetical statement laden with assumptions.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Rubbish.  This conclusion doesn't magically follow from the hypothetical given previously.

[WillK]

See I think one of the things people don't realize is that by themselves stock market losses don't destroy wealth and stock market gains don't create wealth. You see it written up all of the time in news articles by halfwit journalists("the US markets lost $200 billion this week"), but they just fundamentally do not understand the basic functioning of markets.

The rest of your post suggest you dont understand the basic functioning of markets either.

[Wonkish1]

See I think one of the things people don't realize is that by themselves stock market losses don't destroy wealth and stock market gains don't create wealth. You see it written up all of the time in news articles by halfwit journalists("the US markets lost $200 billion this week"), but they just fundamentally do not understand the basic functioning of markets.

The rest of your post suggest you dont understand the basic functioning of markets either.

Well feel free to point out where then, instead of copping out!

[Wonkish1]

Why pay $50k in government expenditure to create a new job when you could create a job for only $5k in expenditure? You wouldn't.

A hypothetical statement laden with assumptions.

Please enlighten us!

And the person that agrees to that simple stream of thought would have just agreed by default that tax cuts are a much more efficient way to create jobs than government expenditure is. You get more bang for your buck.

Rubbish.  This conclusion doesn't magically follow from the hypothetical given previously.

It doesn't magically follow anything, but it does logically follow it.