Yet another BO promise broken (Page 2)
-
No new posts
Moderators: k9car363, the bear, DerekL, alicefoeller | Reply |
|
![]() ![]() |
Pro ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Jackemy - 2009-01-29 12:39 PM So how many net new jobs in the private sector will this stimulus bill create? No one in government knows....but my answer is zero! 800 BILLION DOLLARS! I do think there will be some job creation with the |
|
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Jackemy - 2009-01-29 2:39 PM So how many net new jobs in the private sector will this stimulus bill create? No one in government knows....but my answer is zero! Someone has to write all of those checks and put those stamps on the envelopes! So you are wrong. :P At least 1 job. Actually, I think that jobs can be created with this spending. But like giving the banks money was suppose to make then lend..there was nothing that forced them to. They just kept it and used it for other purposes. |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() This user's post has been ignored. |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() This user's post has been ignored. |
![]() ![]() |
Champion![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() AcesFull - 2009-01-29 3:19 PM The first $350B went directly to banks, who did nothing with it. Jobs has got to be one of the highest, if not the single highest priority. I'd like to see the tax base grow by adding more taxpayers. Yes, this bill is chock full o' pork, but almost every one of those pork projects involves creating a job, supporting an existing industry, growing a needed industry, or some combination of all of these. As to the debt, I have often railed against it, and would very much like to see the nat'l debt paid down. Back when Stimulus #1 was requested by W and company, the data I gathered seemed to suggest that the deficit was a lesser evil at the time. 1) Other than the constrution industry what job are truely being stimulated. 2) What happens when we go back to the pre-stimulus levels of demand for Constructon projects? The Gov't grow nothing but debt and beaurocracy. |
![]() ![]() |
Master![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() OK, found this on the EITC: What is it? So you can get more back than you paid in. I have to agree with Wollf 27 when he said this; If you get 100% of your federal income tax back and then more money it is nothing other than welfare. No matter all the fancy titles - getting money for nothing is welfare. But the issue that I have is that it is being brought up by some people now making it look like it is Obama's fault when it has been going on for a while now. At least that is the impression I get since I am seeing this now but havent in the past. Maybe I am just blind, don't know. There are lots of other taxes that I hate paying to, like school taxes, when I have no kids in school. I know, it is a contribution to the betterment of society. |
|
![]() ![]() |
Coach![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() AcesFull - 2009-01-29 11:11 AM really? I dont see tax cuts but tax rebates/credits...After almost two years of campaigning on a plan to raise all of our taxes (at least according to so many posts here and all the stuff I saw on the liberal-dominated media), BO goes and pushes a plan that would CUT taxes! In fact, his tax plan cuts more in its first two years than either of the massive tax cuts than Bush engineered (which I also opposed). Edited by JorgeM 2009-01-29 3:17 PM |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() This user's post has been ignored. |
![]() ![]() |
Pro![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() wgraves7582 - 2009-01-29 2:19 PM trinnas - 2009-01-29 3:26 PM AcesFull - 2009-01-29 3:19 PM The first $350B went directly to banks, who did nothing with it. Jobs has got to be one of the highest, if not the single highest priority. I'd like to see the tax base grow by adding more taxpayers. Yes, this bill is chock full o' pork, but almost every one of those pork projects involves creating a job, supporting an existing industry, growing a needed industry, or some combination of all of these. As to the debt, I have often railed against it, and would very much like to see the nat'l debt paid down. Back when Stimulus #1 was requested by W and company, the data I gathered seemed to suggest that the deficit was a lesser evil at the time. 1) Other than the constrution industry what job are truely being stimulated. 2) What happens when we go back to the pre-stimulus levels of demand for Constructon projects? The Gov't grow nothing but debt and beaurocracy. And who is going to fill these job vacancies in - White Collar College Educated unemployed people putting asphalt down? It is like when Hillary promised 10K new jobs in Western New York - Yeah all minimum wage type work. What about the edumacated types out there that are losing jobs? actually a lot of white collar jobs are created through federal construction funding; project managers, engineers, support staff, etc. In fact, it's amazing how much of the project funds can actually be spent before any actual construction work gets completed. Oh, and don't forget about the goverment jobs that will be created so that they can figure out how to distribute the money! BTW...don't think I support any of the stimulus money. I wasn't happy about the banks receiving aid and I'm not very please this time around either. But it's like a co-worker told me earlier today..."at least he's doing something." Who can argue with that logic? Edited by rayd 2009-01-29 3:38 PM |
![]() ![]() |
Expert![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() trinnas - 2009-01-29 3:26 PM AcesFull - 2009-01-29 3:19 PM The first $350B went directly to banks, who did nothing with it. Jobs has got to be one of the highest, if not the single highest priority. I'd like to see the tax base grow by adding more taxpayers. Yes, this bill is chock full o' pork, but almost every one of those pork projects involves creating a job, supporting an existing industry, growing a needed industry, or some combination of all of these. As to the debt, I have often railed against it, and would very much like to see the nat'l debt paid down. Back when Stimulus #1 was requested by W and company, the data I gathered seemed to suggest that the deficit was a lesser evil at the time. 1) Other than the constrution industry what job are truely being stimulated. 2) What happens when we go back to the pre-stimulus levels of demand for Constructon projects? The Gov't grow nothing but debt and beaurocracy. Actually, I would put the construction industry as one of the best investments on the list. More roads means more concrete, asphalt, steel, heavy equipment, light equipment, billing, road workers, people that build and put up signs, people that make the pretty orange cones, cut the wood, steel mills that create nails, electricians that wire the houses or street lights, people that feed all these workers, people that grow the food to feed all these workers, peopl that transport that food, well...... you get the idea. I would definately say construction is one of the best investments. Especially when you look at stuff like our bridges and dams that need to be updated regardless and many places would struggle to fund the updates. |
![]() ![]() |
Expert![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() And who is going to fill these job vacancies in - White Collar College Educated unemployed people putting asphalt down? It is like when Hillary promised 10K new jobs in Western New York - Yeah all minimum wage type work. What about the edumacated types out there that are losing jobs?
I have a problem with this statement. It is the same as saying I would rather go on welfare than flip burgers at Mcdonalds. Because people that are "White Collar" are not willing to do those dirty jobs they can get a $0.00 paycheck for all I care. If they feel it is below them then maybe they should go without food for a while or not be able to gas up their Mercedes. For the record, I am at the point in my career I would pretty much consider white collar, but if I were to lose my job and the only one available was a minimum wage job, so be it. |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() | ![]() NavyTRIChief - 2009-01-29 3:47 PM trinnas - 2009-01-29 3:26 PM AcesFull - 2009-01-29 3:19 PM The first $350B went directly to banks, who did nothing with it. Jobs has got to be one of the highest, if not the single highest priority. I'd like to see the tax base grow by adding more taxpayers. Yes, this bill is chock full o' pork, but almost every one of those pork projects involves creating a job, supporting an existing industry, growing a needed industry, or some combination of all of these. As to the debt, I have often railed against it, and would very much like to see the nat'l debt paid down. Back when Stimulus #1 was requested by W and company, the data I gathered seemed to suggest that the deficit was a lesser evil at the time. 1) Other than the constrution industry what job are truely being stimulated. 2) What happens when we go back to the pre-stimulus levels of demand for Constructon projects? The Gov't grow nothing but debt and beaurocracy. Actually, I would put the construction industry as one of the best investments on the list. More roads means more concrete, asphalt, steel, heavy equipment, light equipment, billing, road workers, people that build and put up signs, people that make the pretty orange cones, cut the wood, steel mills that create nails, electricians that wire the houses or street lights, people that feed all these workers, people that grow the food to feed all these workers, peopl that transport that food, well...... you get the idea. I would definately say construction is one of the best investments. Especially when you look at stuff like our bridges and dams that need to be updated regardless and many places would struggle to fund the updates. Also, much of this money was going to be spent anyway. The American infrastructure has been long due for an update. This was going to be government subsidized spending already. So in essence we are killing two birds with one stone - creating jobs and doing so much needed repairs/improvements. |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() This user's post has been ignored. |
![]() ![]() |
Expert![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() PennState - 2009-01-29 4:18 PM I wonder if anyone really understands the long-term impact of this sort of spending... I sure don't. That is the scary part - they have no clue. What has been proven is cutting taxes stimulates the economy and brings in greater tax revenues that high taxes do. |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() This user's post has been ignored. |
![]() ![]() |
Pro![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() This isn't a stimulus package. Lets call it what it is. A second budget above and beyond the one they are already overspending on. No pork in bills? What happens when the WHOLE bill is pork? This is just totally idiocy. Bush started stupid bailouts and now Obama is trying to 1 up him. I don't think people really understand how big 850 billion truly is. If you had $850 BILLION at the birth of Christ, and spent 1 Million dollars EVERY DAY, you still would have over $100 Billion left over! 850,000,000,000.00 is crazy! Stop the bleeding. |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() | ![]() Wolff27 - 2009-01-29 4:54 PM PennState - 2009-01-29 4:18 PM I wonder if anyone really understands the long-term impact of this sort of spending... I sure don't. That is the scary part - they have no clue. What has been proven is cutting taxes stimulates the economy and brings in greater tax revenues that high taxes do. That is so far from proven and is in fact highly argued. At different times tax cuts will have different effects. A tax cut during a recessionary scare where companies are trying to deleverage, might cause companies and people to simply hold onto their money. In the case of government spending, like so much illustrated in that list, if companies want the money they have to actually spend it. |
![]() ![]() |
Pro![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() pengy - 2009-01-29 4:23 PM Wolff27 - 2009-01-29 4:54 PM PennState - 2009-01-29 4:18 PM I wonder if anyone really understands the long-term impact of this sort of spending... I sure don't. That is the scary part - they have no clue. What has been proven is cutting taxes stimulates the economy and brings in greater tax revenues that high taxes do. That is so far from proven and is in fact highly argued. At different times tax cuts will have different effects. A tax cut during a recessionary scare where companies are trying to deleverage, might cause companies and people to simply hold onto their money. In the case of government spending, like so much illustrated in that list, if companies want the money they have to actually spend it. I'm not arguing that point at all, but doesn't it seem silly for our government to not want us to save. Isn't over spending, and massive amounts of debt what got us into this mess in the first place? |
![]() ![]() |
![]() | ![]() bradword - 2009-01-29 5:20 PM This isn't a stimulus package. Lets call it what it is. A second budget above and beyond the one they are already overspending on. No pork in bills? What happens when the WHOLE bill is pork? This is just totally idiocy. Bush started stupid bailouts and now Obama is trying to 1 up him. I don't think people really understand how big 850 billion truly is. If you had $850 BILLION at the birth of Christ, and spent 1 Million dollars EVERY DAY, you still would have over $100 Billion left over! 850,000,000,000.00 is crazy! Stop the bleeding. I'm sorry, but when you have almost unanimous agreements among top economists that government spending is the best way to soften the blow of the recession - I tend to agree with them. The issue is in how to spend it (ie tax cuts or direct government spending). |
![]() ![]() |
Expert![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() pengy - 2009-01-29 5:27 PM bradword - 2009-01-29 5:20 PM This isn't a stimulus package. Lets call it what it is. A second budget above and beyond the one they are already overspending on. No pork in bills? What happens when the WHOLE bill is pork? This is just totally idiocy. Bush started stupid bailouts and now Obama is trying to 1 up him. I don't think people really understand how big 850 billion truly is. If you had $850 BILLION at the birth of Christ, and spent 1 Million dollars EVERY DAY, you still would have over $100 Billion left over! 850,000,000,000.00 is crazy! Stop the bleeding. I'm sorry, but when you have almost unanimous agreements among top economists that government spending is the best way to soften the blow of the recession - I tend to agree with them. The issue is in how to spend it (ie tax cuts or direct government spending). The Republicans put there plan into BO's top economists model and it returned over 50% more jobs with less spending - is that unanimous? Who is this "unanimous" group you are talking about? |
![]() ![]() |
Pro![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() pengy - 2009-01-29 4:27 PM bradword - 2009-01-29 5:20 PM This isn't a stimulus package. Lets call it what it is. A second budget above and beyond the one they are already overspending on. No pork in bills? What happens when the WHOLE bill is pork? This is just totally idiocy. Bush started stupid bailouts and now Obama is trying to 1 up him. I don't think people really understand how big 850 billion truly is. If you had $850 BILLION at the birth of Christ, and spent 1 Million dollars EVERY DAY, you still would have over $100 Billion left over! 850,000,000,000.00 is crazy! Stop the bleeding. I'm sorry, but when you have almost unanimous agreements among top economists that government spending is the best way to soften the blow of the recession - I tend to agree with them. The issue is in how to spend it (ie tax cuts or direct government spending). Because economists have never been wrong... |
|
![]() ![]() |
Pro![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Wolff27 - 2009-01-29 4:36 PM pengy - 2009-01-29 5:27 PM bradword - 2009-01-29 5:20 PM This isn't a stimulus package. Lets call it what it is. A second budget above and beyond the one they are already overspending on. No pork in bills? What happens when the WHOLE bill is pork? This is just totally idiocy. Bush started stupid bailouts and now Obama is trying to 1 up him. I don't think people really understand how big 850 billion truly is. If you had $850 BILLION at the birth of Christ, and spent 1 Million dollars EVERY DAY, you still would have over $100 Billion left over! 850,000,000,000.00 is crazy! Stop the bleeding. I'm sorry, but when you have almost unanimous agreements among top economists that government spending is the best way to soften the blow of the recession - I tend to agree with them. The issue is in how to spend it (ie tax cuts or direct government spending). The Republicans put there plan into BO's top economists model and it returned over 50% more jobs with less spending - is that unanimous? Who is this "unanimous" group you are talking about? It's like that global warming unanimous thing. |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() This user's post has been ignored. |
![]() ![]() |
Expert![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() bradword - 2009-01-29 5:38 PM Wolff27 - 2009-01-29 4:36 PM pengy - 2009-01-29 5:27 PM bradword - 2009-01-29 5:20 PM This isn't a stimulus package. Lets call it what it is. A second budget above and beyond the one they are already overspending on. No pork in bills? What happens when the WHOLE bill is pork? This is just totally idiocy. Bush started stupid bailouts and now Obama is trying to 1 up him. I don't think people really understand how big 850 billion truly is. If you had $850 BILLION at the birth of Christ, and spent 1 Million dollars EVERY DAY, you still would have over $100 Billion left over! 850,000,000,000.00 is crazy! Stop the bleeding. I'm sorry, but when you have almost unanimous agreements among top economists that government spending is the best way to soften the blow of the recession - I tend to agree with them. The issue is in how to spend it (ie tax cuts or direct government spending). The Republicans put there plan into BO's top economists model and it returned over 50% more jobs with less spending - is that unanimous? Who is this "unanimous" group you are talking about? It's like that global warming unanimous thing. Ahhh yes! ![]() That is when hundreds of professors from Ivy League and other top schools, and the founder of the Weather Channel, are dismissed because they disagree. BTW - over $60 Million in the Stimulus bill (or it may have been $70M) just to do more studies of what they say is foregone conclusion - how is this going to stimulate the economy? |
![]() ![]() |
Champion![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() trinnas - 2009-01-29 12:26 PM AcesFull - 2009-01-29 3:19 PM The first $350B went directly to banks, who did nothing with it. Jobs has got to be one of the highest, if not the single highest priority. I'd like to see the tax base grow by adding more taxpayers. Yes, this bill is chock full o' pork, but almost every one of those pork projects involves creating a job, supporting an existing industry, growing a needed industry, or some combination of all of these. As to the debt, I have often railed against it, and would very much like to see the nat'l debt paid down. Back when Stimulus #1 was requested by W and company, the data I gathered seemed to suggest that the deficit was a lesser evil at the time. 1) Other than the constrution industry what job are truely being stimulated. 2) What happens when we go back to the pre-stimulus levels of demand for Constructon projects? The Gov't grow nothing but debt and beaurocracy.
Even if the money only goes directly to the construction industry, that'll help a lot. As someone who lives with an engineer who is right now working on a gov't contract project, it's nice to have that money coming in. That means we get to go shopping, pay our rent, buy groceries, go out to dinner, and otherwise spread our money around our community. Not to mention the guys doing the actual construction. They have bills to pay and things to buy and help support their communities too. It's all a big chain. Think of it as trickle-up economics. Then, with all that money being poured into the economy and finally starting to move around, I can see how we'll be back to the pre-recession demand for Construction.
|
|