Originally posted by Hugh GlassWell we certainly wouldn't want to help people if it at all helps Obama's chances.
try 9.1 % unemployment, which is actually low by most estimates.... what was it we were told it would go to without the STIMULUS?
It's not just the fact it is 9.1%, it also the extent of time it has and will be there, predicted to be high through 2012...now if you say the first stimulus worked, we got very little for our tax money I'd say... so you can a ...[text shortened]... rows old.... what ever Pelosis wants to call it, the bill will never pass in present form.
Originally posted by spruce112358Odd, the country was more prosperous when the gov't employed more people.
No. Saving jobs that are going away is a nonsensical activity. If the US auto industry is destined to collapse then it will be a lot more healthy for the country to let it happen as soon as possible so that those resources can be released for more productive activity.
Government interference 'to save jobs' simply creates a zombie state where people c ing jobs should definitely not be a government function because they are so horrible at it.
I can't decide if right wingers are simply deluded by hate, or are just plain stupid.
17 Sep 11
To me, Obama's plan has many of the same faults as the first "stimulus" package. It's weighted heavily to tax cuts and to business tax cuts with no assurance that such cuts will lead to hiring (corporate profits are at a record level but hiring is flat). The direct spending on infrastructure (which is sorely needed) is again funnelled through the States which will lead to unnecessary bottlenecks and delays. And picking up the tab for States that continue to pursue countercyclical fiscal policies because of foolish yearly balanced budget requirements and years of tax cuts for wealthy taxpayers is wasteful.
I'd prefer more direct spending, a jobs tax credit with real incentives (say no business taxes on employers who increase hiring by X % if the jobs pay at "decent" levels and provide health care), penalties for off-shore hiring by domestic firms and stringent enforcement of the laws regarding employment of illegals to the half-assed program Obama has proposed (one might say AGAIN).
17 Sep 11
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderI'm not too crazy about it ether. Selfishly I want to keep the payroll tax cut and we need to extend UI benefits. Any investments or tax increase won't go through so there is no need to discuss it.
To me, Obama's plan has many of the same faults as the first "stimulus" package. It's weighted heavily to tax cuts and to business tax cuts with no assurance that such cuts will lead to hiring (corporate profits are at a record level but hiring is flat). The direct spending on infrastructure (which is sorely needed) is again funnelled through the States mployment of illegals to the half-assed program Obama has proposed (one might say AGAIN).
There needs to be an influx of money to the state governments so yes, they can hire. Its the most efficient and effective way for the feds to lower the unemployment level.
17 Sep 11
Originally posted by badmoonI see no need for Obama to surrender (AGAIN) before even fighting. The proposal should be both an economic one geared to increase employment and a political one to show the differences between the President and the Republicans.
I'm not too crazy about it ether. Selfishly I want to keep the payroll tax cut and we need to extend UI benefits. Any investments or tax increase won't go through so there is no need to discuss it.
There needs to be an influx of money to the state governments so yes, they can hire. Its the most efficient and effective way for the feds to lower the unemployment level.
State governments are a wasteland and many of them are run by hardcore Republicans intent on sabotaging any program supported by Obama. Throwing money to them is poor policy IMO.
18 Sep 11
Originally posted by no1marauderHow about just splitting the $447 billion up among the average Joe?
To me, Obama's plan has many of the same faults as the first "stimulus" package. It's weighted heavily to tax cuts and to business tax cuts with no assurance that such cuts will lead to hiring (corporate profits are at a record level but hiring is flat). The direct spending on infrastructure (which is sorely needed) is again funnelled through the States ...[text shortened]... mployment of illegals to the half-assed program Obama has proposed (one might say AGAIN).
Then again, government and corporate America are much better at redistributing our money than we are. :'(
18 Sep 11
Originally posted by badmoonTax breaks? I"m not talking about a few nickles to rub together man!! IF the last stimulus had been given back to the people that gave them the money it would have come out to be around $18,000 per person!!
Plus we get the tax breaks? Works for me.
Instead, they gave it to the people who give them the money to stay in power.
For me stimulus = fleecing of the people with the empty promise of jobs attached to it.
18 Sep 11
Originally posted by whodeyRight wingers must use a different type of math than the rest of us.
Tax breaks? I"m not talking about a few nickles to rub together man!! IF the last stimulus had been given back to the people that gave them the money it would have come out to be around $18,000 per person!!
Instead, they gave it to the people who give them the money to stay in power.
For me stimulus = fleecing of the people with the empty promise of jobs attached to it.
The entire US population is about 311 million. If the 2009 stimulus came out to "$18,000 a person" it was $5.6 trillion.