or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Obama Caves In
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Obama Caves In - Page 7

post #241 of 295
My Rep voted for cap-and-tax... why? He said, for all the green jobs it would produce for our district.

In two weeks, he'll be looking for one of them.
A is A
Reply
A is A
Reply
post #242 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by john galt View Post

The employment figures are not cumulative Hands.

Read the report: Table 1 tabulates employment attributable to ARRA. It peaked earlier this year, and is expected to be negligible by 2012. In other words, many of the jobs "created" by ARRA have since disappeared, no matter how many hundreds of thousands of dollars each "created" job cost.

Whether a "created" job cost taxpayers $300,000 or $700,000, many are now gone. This effectively increases the cost of whatever "created" jobs still remain.

"Jobs Saved" does not appear anywhere in the report, for good reason. As soon as the administration begin to use the term, economists derided it as irresponsible. "Jobs Saved" cannot be quantified. The Obama administration was finally shamed into abandoning it.

How many of these jobs have been lost, do you have numbers?

The stimulus I think was meant to peak mid 2010 with the number of new jobs created or "funded" but so? New jobs will still be created going through into 4th quarter 2012 from this stimulus money. As I posted earlier it's a lot too.

I'm not sure if they were ashamed, there were errors and they wanted to be clearer so they changed it to "jobs funded", no big deal really.
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #243 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by john galt View Post

My Rep voted for cap-and-tax... why? He said, for all the green jobs it would produce for our district.

In two weeks, he'll be looking for one of them.

Yes the repubs voted out practically anyone who even thinks GW is a real issue. Something they inherently know is evil!
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #244 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

How many of these jobs have been lost, do you have numbers?

The stimulus I think was meant to peak mid 2010 with the number of new jobs created or "funded" but so? New jobs will still be created going through into 4th quarter 2012 from this stimulus money. As I posted earlier it's a lot too.

Someone is lying to you about the jobs created or "saved." I suggest you find out who and give them a good smack upside the head. If the numbers you claim were even close to real would wouldn't be sitting at 9.8% (official) unemployment...it would be much lower.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

I'm not sure if they were ashamed, there were errors and they wanted to be clearer so they changed it to "jobs funded", no big deal really.

They should have been ashamed. It was a bullshit non-measurable propaganda term that they thought they could get away with and they got called on it. Either that or they really are so dumb that they thought it was a real, measurable thing.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #245 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by john galt View Post

Again, please tell us...? What are we missing? I'm not being facetious. What miraculous beneficence have our beloved leaders bestowed upon us? Is it a state secret or something? Must we wait for a Wikileaks release that will assure us all is well, Jack Bauer's got our back?

I get the impression you can't fathom that a government allegedly overseeing a multi-trillion dollar economy really doesn't know what the hell it's doing. That's understandable. Once you realize these people are dumber than a bag of hammers you'll see the light.

I suspect you would have the same view of many repubs. If you don't fine. I don't know your views well enough to know, so am I right?

I actually think government is incredibly clever in many ways from left to right. It's the voters, myself included, who are lacking the knowledge most of the time, at least many of us are. It's hardly surprising though.

Clearly you think the stimulus hasn't produced or kept jobs. There have been job losses and that earlier prediction greatly underestimating the severity of the coming job losses, so you conclude that the gov wasted all this money. The fact is they've made things better than they would have been, bug granted there are consequences too.
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #246 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Someone is lying to you about the jobs created or "saved." I suggest you find out who and give them a good smack upside the head. If the numbers you claim were even close to real would wouldn't be sitting at 9.8% (official) unemployment...it would be much lower.




They should have been ashamed. It was a bullshit non-measurable propaganda term that they thought they could get away with and they got called on it. Either that or they really are so dumb that they thought it was a real, measurable thing.

What makes you think that the unemployment numbers couldn't be what they are today with those created and funded jobs? You're jumping to a big conclusion there mj.

The government was using saved appropriately in many cases but it didn't fit well with a small portion so it was scrapped and they used funded instead because you can add funding to help a job stay open even if that particular job was not necessarily going to be lost. It's not a crime to use it, it just doesn't fit always appropriately, that's all.
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #247 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

What makes you think that the unemployment numbers couldn't be what they are today with those created and funded jobs? You're jumping to a big conclusion there mj.

I don't think so. If there had been 7M jobs created or even 3.5M we would have seen unemployment drop.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

The government was using saved appropriately in many cases but it didn't fit well with a small portion so it was scrapped and they used funded instead because you can add funding to help a job stay open even if that particular job was not necessarily going to be lost. It's not a crime to use it, it just doesn't fit always appropriately, that's all.

Wrong. It is a bullshit unmeasurable "statistic." Or at least one subject to a high degree of subjective "tweaking" (a.k.a. lying).

Look, you can look and search and scratch and scrape for all the good news you want...Obamanomics has been a failure. They did the exact opposite of what they should have done which would have been to cut spending and taxes (permanent in both cases) and not wander around for a couple of years verbally abusing the private sector and promising all sorts of future taxes, spending, regulation and so on. They should have never passed ObamaCare or bailed out the UAW (or any companies). The only thing these actions have created is the stagnation we have now.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #248 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

I actually think government is incredibly clever in many ways from left to right.

This tells just about all we need to know I think.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

that earlier prediction greatly underestimating the severity of the coming job losses,

They really sold you didn't they?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

The fact is they've made things better than they would have been

There is no such "fact."

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #249 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

How many of these jobs have been lost, do you have numbers?

The stimulus I think was meant to peak mid 2010 with the number of new jobs created or "funded" but so? New jobs will still be created going through into 4th quarter 2012 from this stimulus money. As I posted earlier it's a lot too.

No, they're not, Hands. That's the essential point. The jobs attributable to ARRA have been diminishing and will continue to do so - it's the sole reason a "second stimulus" was being seriously considered, prior to November 2. They're not my numbers, they're the CBO's. It's referenced in the story you yourself posted last night; surely you read it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

I suspect you would have the same view of many repubs. If you don't fine. I don't know your views well enough to know, so am I right?

About what? My views of Rs? Who cares? I have my opinions, if you don't know what they are you haven't been paying attention

Quote:
I actually think government is incredibly clever in many ways from left to right.

Clever? Incredibly clever? Whose government are you talking about?

I'm incredulous that anyone could have such an opinion, but to each his own. Live and let live. May your chains rest lightly upon you.

Quote:
It's the voters, myself included, who are lacking the knowledge most of the time, at least many of us are. It's hardly surprising though.

Granted many people don't bother to become informed. They'd rather drug themselves with ball games and reality TV and other mindless pursuits, I can't blame anyone for that. Perhaps thinking is simply too difficult a task for them. To each his own. But when you pay taxes quarterly, as I do, and see tens of thousands of my hard-earned dollars evaporate every three months, I wonder about my return on that investment. Not once have I received so much as a stinking thank-you card from any "clever" government folks. I get plenty of automated correspondence from those nice friendly computers at the IRS though.

Really, for most people, even those of moderate means, taxes are their single biggest extravagance. I'm incredulous that most of them have such blind faith in where the money goes.

"Clever"... I have to hand it to you Hands, you have made my mind boggle at the thought. I don't boggle easily. I can't even remember the last time I boggled. Tell me you're just messing with me...?

Quote:
Clearly you think the stimulus hasn't produced or kept jobs...

It's not about what I think Hands, it's what the CBO report states. Read it. All the numbers are there. I don't know how else to put it.
A is A
Reply
A is A
Reply
post #250 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by john galt View Post

No, they're not, Hands. That's the essential point. The jobs attributable to ARRA have been diminishing and will continue to do so - it's the sole reason a "second stimulus" was being seriously considered, prior to November 2. They're not my numbers, they're the CBO's. It's referenced in the story you yourself posted last night; surely you read it?


About what? My views of Rs? Who cares? I have my opinions, if you don't know what they are you haven't been paying attention

Clever? Incredibly clever? Whose government are you talking about?

I'm incredulous that anyone could have such an opinion, but to each his own. Live and let live. May your chains rest lightly upon you.



Granted many people don't bother to become informed. They'd rather drug themselves with ball games and reality TV and other mindless pursuits, I can't blame anyone for that. Perhaps thinking is simply too difficult a task for them. To each his own. But when you pay taxes quarterly, as I do, and see tens of thousands of my hard-earned dollars evaporate every three months, I wonder about my return on that investment. Not once have I received so much as a stinking thank-you card from any "clever" government folks. I get plenty of automated correspondence from those nice friendly computers at the IRS though.

Really, for most people, even those of moderate means, taxes are their single biggest extravagance. I'm incredulous that most of them have such blind faith in where the money goes.

"Clever"... I have to hand it to you Hands, you have made my mind boggle at the thought. I don't boggle easily. I can't even remember the last time I boggled. Tell me you're just messing with me...?



It's not about what I think Hands, it's what the CBO report states. Read it. All the numbers are there. I don't know how else to put it.


Quote:
About what? My views of Rs? Who cares? I have my opinions, if you don't know what they are you haven't been paying attention

Statements like this allow you a great deal of latitude here when debating don't they?
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #251 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by john galt View Post

My Rep voted for cap-and-tax... why? He said, for all the green jobs it would produce for our district.

In two weeks, he'll be looking for one of them.

Yes the repubs voted out practically anyone who even thinks GW is a real issue. Something they inherently know is evil!

I don't think that was the case. The guy was incredibly (one might say pathologically ) out of touch and simply walked the D party line, despite extremely active and vocal popular opposition. The House cap-and-tax bill threatened to place an additional burden on everyone at a time in which no additional impositions can be contemplated.

"Green Jobs" were a chimera. At best, cap-and-tax would have killed one job for every new "green" one. Many people in my district simply need a job - they don't care what color it is.

Edit: meant to write "psychotically". Whatever... he's gone
A is A
Reply
A is A
Reply
post #252 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Statements like this allow you a great deal of latitude here when debating don't they?

Thank you for your contribution to the debate
A is A
Reply
A is A
Reply
post #253 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by john galt View Post

Thank you for your contribution to the debate

I thought it was an important point to note given the question Hands asked.

I mean you repied with " Who cares? ". Obviously he did otherwise he wouldn't have asked it. So I think it was part of the debate.

An important part.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #254 of 295
Food for thought :

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40687410...-more_politics

Poll: Obama down but not out
NBC/WSJ survey shows president leading in 2012 match-ups



Quote:
Yet the survey also shows Obama comfortably leading prominent Republicans like former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin in hypothetical head-to-head match-ups for 2012.

I'm sure some won't like this but it's a long road to 2012.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #255 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

I thought it was an important point to note given the question Hands asked.

Hands wrote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

I suspect you would have the same view of many repubs. If you don't fine. I don't know your views well enough to know, so am I right?

to which I replied

Quote:
About what? My views of Rs? Who cares?

I don't know what subject his question "am I right" was addressing, so I asked if it was regarding my "view of repubs", and replied (to that question) "who cares" since I didn't understand its relevance to the issue being discussed. I didn't intend to be disrespectful and trust it wasn't perceived that way.

In any event, Hands can clarify it if he wishes.

I still reserve the right to care... or not
A is A
Reply
A is A
Reply
post #256 of 295
John, you'll find it rather common here (if you haven't noticed already) for some posters to engage in the red herring fallacy by trying to divert the discussion from the topic at hand to questions, implications and innuendo about an individual person's intent, beliefs, views and opinions which are often of questionable relevance.

You'll also find it fairly common for some posters to regularly accuse others of strong, even extreme partisanship while hoping no one notices their own strong, even extreme partisanship.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #257 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

John, you'll find it rather common here (if you haven't noticed already) for some posters to engage in the red herring fallacy by trying to divert the discussion from the topic at hand to questions, implications and innuendo about an individual person's intent, beliefs, views and opinions which are often of questionable relevance.

You'll also find it fairly common for some posters to regularly accuse others of strong, even extreme partisanship while hoping no one notices their own strong, even extreme partisanship.

A very charitable characterization, MJ.
A is A
Reply
A is A
Reply
post #258 of 295
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by john galt View Post

My Rep voted for cap-and-tax... why? He said, for all the green jobs it would produce for our district.

In two weeks, he'll be looking for one of them.

He deserves what he gets.Screw the Republicans!
post #259 of 295
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Food for thought :

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40687410...-more_politics

Poll: Obama down but not out
NBC/WSJ survey shows president leading in 2012 match-ups





I'm sure some won't like this but it's a long road to 2012.

I hope Palin runs Obama would than become president for a second term.Romney I am not to sure about. He is a creep with no personality behind him.At least Obama has charisma.
post #260 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by gerald apple View Post

I hope Palin runs Obama would than become president for a second term.Romney I am not to sure about. He is a creep with no personality behind him.At least Obama has charisma.

Rommney's had his own share of mistakes and Obama is currently leading him in the poll. I just don't see either one ( Palin or Rommney ) in the Whitehouse.

And right now the Republicans don't have much else.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #261 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Lol.

So you really believe we spent $300,000 on each 2.8 million jobs lost. Something tells me you're not looking at the whole picture AT ALL!

It turns out you are correct Hands, I did not see the "whole picture AT ALL!"

As damning as it is, even the CBO report is incomplete.

Upon researching BLS data, it turns out that there have been a net loss of 414,000 private sector jobs since June 2009.

The law became effective in February, but I chose June since it's reasonable to expect a lag of a couple months before actual hiring could be accomplished following the law's implementation. Millions of additional jobs were lost in the interim.

It gets worse. Inasmuch that government cannot create jobs except for government jobs that draw upon private sector tax revenue for funding, even they have declined by 7000 (I specifically excluded census workers since including them would show an additional loss of about 200,000 jobs).

The number of Federal government jobs has increased considerably, if you consider that a bright spot in this rather dismal picture (which you shouldn't). They came at the price of local, and to a lesser extent, state government jobs. Since a Federal government employee generally enjoys higher salary and benefits, the overall economic burden will increase.

Bad enough? It gets worse. Since those statistics include temporary and part time jobs, the number of full time jobs has declined even more.

Thanks for encouraging me to dig deeper. Even I didn't believe the stimulus failed to the horrible extent that it has.

Incredibly clever? I respectfully disagree.

---

http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cesbtab1.htm
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...381208608.html
A is A
Reply
A is A
Reply
post #262 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by john galt View Post

It turns out you are correct Hands, I did not see the "whole picture AT ALL!"

As damning as it is, even the CBO report is incomplete.

Upon researching BLS data, it turns out that there have been a net loss of 414,000 private sector jobs since June 2009.

The law became effective in February, but I chose June since it's reasonable to expect a lag of a couple months before actual hiring could be accomplished following the law's implementation. Millions of additional jobs were lost in the interim.

It gets worse. Inasmuch that government cannot create jobs except for government jobs that draw upon private sector tax revenue for funding, even they have declined by 7000 (I specifically excluded census workers since including them would show an additional loss of about 200,000 jobs).

The number of Federal government jobs has increased considerably, if you consider that a bright spot in this rather dismal picture (which you shouldn't). They came at the price of local, and to a lesser extent, state government jobs. Since a Federal government employee generally enjoys higher salary and benefits, the overall economic burden will increase.

Bad enough? It gets worse. Since those statistics include temporary and part time jobs, the number of full time jobs has declined even more.

Thanks for encouraging me to dig deeper. Even I didn't believe the stimulus failed to the horrible extent that it has.

Incredibly clever? I respectfully disagree.

---

http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cesbtab1.htm
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...381208608.html

John, thanks for another thorough reply. I'm too busy to try to fully understand all the ins and outs of all of this (though I've read your links often 2 or 3 times over, (except all of the pdf's). Your pointing out job losses, very important but how much worse would it have been without nearly a trillion dollars? Your saying that trillion dollars had no effect, none, and in the same breath saying it resulted in about 3 million jobs lost. That to me is just absurd. The actuall number of jobs created or funded is obviously hard to pinpoint but many are pinpointable directly to this nearly a trillion dollars. I hate the debt too, the inflation and perhaps most importantly the inevitable loss of sovereignty implicite from borrowing from overseas, but clearly there has been a job boost in the very least in the short term and not to recnognize that strikes me as way to partisan for my liking.
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #263 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

but how much worse would it have been without nearly a trillion dollars?

No one knows. Three possibilities:
  1. Things would have gotten worse
  2. Things would have gotten better
  3. There would have been no effect

Obamapologists assume #1 without any supporting logic or evidence other than simply the (faulty, unsupportable and historically discredited) Keynesian assumption that the government has to Do Something(tm).

Possibility #3 seems least likely. It's almost certain there would be some effect when the government borrows a shit-load of money and starts spending it.

I'm in the possibility #2 camp. Two reasons: logic and historical precedent (the Great Depression) strongly suggest that this sort of action actually has the opposite effects from what is predicted, expected and wished for by Keynesians.

The logic to apply here is that to do this, the government must remove large sums of money from the private sector (either presently through taxation or inflation, or in the future with interest charges added on) where it would be spent by individuals according to their own value hierarchies. When money is voluntarily spent based on people's personal value hierarchies is when win-win transactions occur and wealth grows. When that money is, instead, taken by force and spent on things that are politically decided, sure some folks win (the recipients of this stolen money, and those who value how it is spent) but many also lose because it is being spent on things they either don't value at all or value negatively (would be opposed to). This is one way that wealth is basically destroyed. Recipients of government money have very little incentive to meet customer demands and needs and wants...well not the customer as most of us see them...their customer is politicians and bureaucrats.

On the historical example, it is becoming more commonly understood and admitted that the FDR administration who took Hoover administration economic initiatives (higher taxes, trade protectionism and government spending) and dialed them to 11...actually worsened the economic situation, causing the economic down turn to be lengthened, deepened and for stagnation to occur for a decade:

Quote:
"We are spending more money than we have ever spent before and it does not work. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. We have never made good on our promises. I say after eight years of this administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started and an enormous debt to boot." -- Henry Morgenthau, Jr., U.S. Treasury Secretary under FDR

In fact, one could look at the depression of 1920-1921 (GDP decline of about 17%, unemployment jump from 4 to 12%) as a great example of a different approach than the Keynesian "government-funded" (that's a joke if you're not aware) counter-cyclical economic policies. In this economic downturn/recession (a word invented after the Great Depression to avoid any hint of "depression")/depression the government did exactly the opposite of what Keynesians say we must do. They cut spending (by about 50%) and taxes (for everyone) and debt (by 30%). The Fed was a rather passive player during this time. The economy recovered actually quite well and quite quickly. By the summer of 1921 unemployment was 6.7% and 2.4% by 1923.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #264 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

... Your saying that trillion dollars had no effect, none, and in the same breath saying it resulted in about 3 million jobs lost.

Not exactly. The CBO report that your story referenced summarizes jobs that were attributable to the stimulus, which it also points out have largely run their course and disappeared. In post 211 I wrote the trillion dollars amounted to a cost of "nearly $300,000" per "job created" given the CBO's numbers.

I've looked but I can't find where I wrote the "stimulus" resulted in 3 million jobs lost; perhaps you had inferred this from the number of jobs the CBO report says were created but aren't around any longer. ARRA certainly resulted in employment, but its effect was temporary and its cost, enormous. The $814B stimulus left us with no enduring recovery, and a huge bill to pay.

Next, I analyzed the BLS data, which are highly specific and far more damning regarding the stimulus's effect on employment. At best, it showed a slight job loss for the period. I summarized its findings in post 261.

Quote:
... That to me is just absurd.

Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong.

I don't blame you for the great deal of skepticism you have. It's human nature to believe that a trillion dollars of easy money must result in... something. The problem is that the premise is inherently flawed: jobs do not arise from the mere existence of money. The amount of money in question - a million, billions, trillions - can't change that fact. Jobs, and the aggregate wealth created by private employment, arise from an innate desire for men and women to produce something of value. This desire doesn't spring from government, however, government can create an atmosphere that encourages this basic desire. Such an atmosphere consists of protections for intellectual and real property, a system for dispute resolution, an environment conducive for markets to function, and other characteristics that result in a fertile ground for economic growth.

I think most Americans would characterize what I've described as simply, "freedom".

At least, government ought not to discourage growth. Overzealous regulation, onerous employer requirements and confiscatory taxation are three examples that discourage growth. More toxic than any of these is uncertainty, which we have in abundance. It began with uncertainty regarding next year's tax policy, arguably that began four years ago, when Congress turned against the party that enacted the tax cuts. The enormous, unprecedented amount of uncertainty of Obamacare exacerbated this bad atmosphere. A two year extension of present tax policy is merely a reprieve.

I fervently hope that we will realize some semblance of a meaningful economic recovery, but given that this uncertainty began (in my opinion) with the contemplated sunset of the Bush tax cuts, this isn't promising. Hope does not constitute an economic plan.

Make no mistake - uncertainty remains.

You don't have to believe me Hands. I encourage you to research the data as I have and draw your own conclusions. The BLS website is extremely useful in that it has a great number of very specific employment categories and can be normalized for seasonal effects. It's easy to use, it's the raw data, and it can't be fudged.

Lastly, MJ provided an excellent response to your gratuitously worded question "how much worse would it have been" had we not passed ARRA. I can't improve upon it.
A is A
Reply
A is A
Reply
post #265 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

... When that money is, instead, taken by force and spent on things that are politically decided, sure some folks win ...

I have a distant neighbor who's an artist. Being an artist he's tree-hugger of course, but I like him - he's eccentric, but he creates art and I can't, so I bought a few of his sculptures. I like looking at them. He is very successful at his craft. He makes lots and lots of money.

I also have a flock of wild turkeys that roam Galt's Gulch. I like looking at them too. They're not as tasty as frozen Butterballs and much less convenient to cook, so they're safe here.

Anyway, being a tree-hugger, my artist friend decides to feed the cute little turkeys. He buys the finest turkey feed, whatever that is, and the turkeys gobble it up.

Months pass, he's feeding the turkeys, life is good. Turkeys are not one of God's most intelligent creatures though, so they get fat and lazy and stop foraging for themselves. The toms forget all about chasing the hens, their formerly beautiful plumage gets ratty and dirty, but they're perfectly happy living on the artist's tasty turkey feed.

I also have a fox that roams Galt's Gulch.

One day, there is one less turkey. Then, two less. Now, there are none.

The fox is happy though. He now has a nice family of cute little foxes.

I like looking at them too.
A is A
Reply
A is A
Reply
post #266 of 295
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

I don't think so. If there had been 7M jobs created or even 3.5M we would have seen unemployment drop.




Wrong. It is a bullshit unmeasurable "statistic." Or at least one subject to a high degree of subjective "tweaking" (a.k.a. lying).

Look, you can look and search and scratch and scrape for all the good news you want...Obamanomics has been a failure. They did the exact opposite of what they should have done which would have been to cut spending and taxes (permanent in both cases) and not wander around for a couple of years verbally abusing the private sector and promising all sorts of future taxes, spending, regulation and so on. They should have never passed ObamaCare or bailed out the UAW (or any companies). The only thing these actions have created is the stagnation we have now.

Let us see what your great republican party will do in the next 2 years? face it they are for the rich always not for us.Middle Class or Poor.
post #267 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by gerald apple View Post

Let us see what your great republican party will do in the next 2 years? face it they are for the rich always not for us.Middle Class or Poor.

You do realize the Democrats still control the Senate and the Executive Branch, right?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #268 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by gerald apple View Post

Let us see what your great republican party will do in the next 2 years? face it they are for the rich always not for us.Middle Class or Poor.

You do realize the Democrats still control the Senate and the Executive Branch, right?

Also realize that after ten years of Democrats hysterically denouncing Bush's tax cuts as benefits exclusively for "millionaires and billionaires," they just validated them. All of them. House, Senate, and Executive.

Their hypocrisy amazes me.
A is A
Reply
A is A
Reply
post #269 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

You do realize the Democrats still control the Senate and the Executive Branch, right?

Heck they still control the House. No one from the midterms takes office until January. That's why all this nonsense is being dealt with in the lame-duck session. Just like how Democrats loving slapping Bush with whatever he had to sign with Democrats controlling the House and Senate his last two years of office, we get to slap Democrats with every dollar, every lost job and every single incident that happens up until Republicans take the House.

Then as you note, we still get to lay most of the issues at their feet because the Senate and Execute branch are still theirs.

Almost sounds like a good pitch for 2012.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #270 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by gerald apple View Post

Let us see what your great republican party will do in the next 2 years? face it they are for the rich always not for us.Middle Class or Poor.

Typical liberal attitude; If you are for the rich then you must be against the middle class and poor.

To be a liberal these days you have to reject the idea that all basic principles apply to everyone equally. You have to have different rules for "rich" vs "poor". It helps democrats divide the country to maintain voting blocks.
post #271 of 295
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post

Typical liberal attitude; If you are for the rich then you must be against the middle class and poor.

To be a liberal these days you have to reject the idea that all basic principles apply to everyone equally. You have to have different rules for "rich" vs "poor". It helps democrats divide the country to maintain voting blocks.

I wish this was correct what you state but unfortunately the GOP Party always for years was noted for the rich classes and large business.Reagan,Ford,Nixon,Bush Sr and Jr, rich all the way and for wars which they capitalized on both Bushes.
post #272 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by gerald apple View Post

I wish this was correct what you state but unfortunately the GOP Party always for years was noted for the rich classes and large business.Reagan,Ford,Nixon,Bush Sr and Jr, rich all the way and for wars which they capitalized on both Bushes.

Can you please clarify what you are trying to say? Either you misinterpreted what he was saying, or I am not understanding you at all.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #273 of 295
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

Can you please clarify what you are trying to say? Either you misinterpreted what he was saying, or I am not understanding you at all.

The rich is the GOP and the poor and middle class like myself are the Democrats.That has been throughout history.
post #274 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by gerald apple View Post

The rich is the GOP and the poor and middle class like myself are the Democrats.That has been throughout history.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #275 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by gerald apple View Post

The rich is the GOP and the poor and middle class like myself are the Democrats.That has been throughout history.

What a wonderful job those Ds have done for "the poor".

Nixon was really looking out for big business with his central-planning style wage and price controls, wasn't he? Really good move, that. Arguably, a more "collectivist" policy than any Democrat's, before or since.

When they were mercifully lifted nearly three years later, inflation skyrocketed.

It took ten years to finally undo the damage.
A is A
Reply
A is A
Reply
post #276 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by john galt View Post

That is the proposed threshold, up from the $1M it was to become in January. Raising it to $5M doesn't make it right. Confiscating legally derived earnings of even one man over a lifetime is just as morally objectionable. It is impossible to justify the death tax except on the principle "you have it, I want it, now give it to me".

Bear in mind that at its inception, the AMT was written to target exactly just 155 ultra-wealthy taxpayers (wikipedia excerpt):

My understanding of the estate tax is that it was created to prevent Rockefeller and Carnegie-like dynasties from forming--ones that would create almost a royal class, so to speak. The idea was to take half of that money and redistribute it. It's definitely wrong, morally speaking...but I believe that was the idea.

Quote:


Given the Fed's devaluation of the dollar, it's only a matter of time before we all have estates of $5M So be careful with moral relativism.



Correct, and remember a primary goal of estate planning is to minimize estate taxes. It doesn't miraculously disappear.

Morally wrong, and negligible treasury revenue. All the more reason to just get rid of it.



Uh huh. I posted a response to dubious that claim earlier in this thread: http://forums.appleinsider.com/showp...0&postcount=60



Right. I see their "confidence" being spent on lottery tickets, casinos, and boxes of Kools all the time So go ahead, argue. While you continue to assert more gratuitous nonsense, to make a noun plural, add an "s". One American, two Americans. It's easy.




Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

I'm sure you genuinely believe that and I'd bet that there would be instances, possibly many, where it's true, but you'd have to admit that the government helps to create opportunity too, which is something that you rarely touch upon.[

Not only does he not have to admit it...no one does. It's false. The government can only get out of the way. It can only help create the CONDITIONS that create opportunity...by getting out of the way.

Quote:
But either way, in the short term there are those who desperately need money and leaving their lives to the whims of a charitable public is short sighted wishful thinking at best and at worst a blatant disregard of large sections of society which would cause all kinds of issues like homelessness, ill health and crime.

No, they don't need money. They need shelter, food and clothing. Giving them cash is absolutely the wrong idea. It destroys work incentive and families. It creates a welfare state. What we need to do is change our welfare system from a financial need-based one to an ability-based one. Other than short-term unemployment insurance (which should cap at a year, max), if you have the mental and physical ABILITY to work, you should not get cash assistance in any circumstances. If you don't...that's different. Now, "what about the poor?" you ask. "They will starve!" No, they won't. We should set up food banks and clothing banks. If you can work, shelter is up to you. If not, we take care of you in relatively comfortable fashion....no luxuries really, but we'll take good care of you.

Quote:

One other thing. Obama pumped billions into tax credits. That's when people work but don't earn enough to pay their bills and so the government tops up their pay so that there not earning below the poverty line. This in a way, at least in many cases is taking the burden of employers. They can get away with paying crappy wages that lots of people can't afford to live on and pay themselves supersize bonuses. I'm glad those poor people aren't living in poverty and that at least they've got as job, but in many ways it's a government giveaway to business, you might even call it welfare for the wealthy.

I really don't know what world you live in. The only time the government did anything like that was with the housing tax credit. That resulted in some people getting slightly more back than they paid. But for 2008 buyer, like me, it's a loan and has to be repaid over 15 years (500 per). For 2009 buyers, it's just a credit. Other than that, tax credits don't pump up people's income. It lets the government take less of what they already have. They might see a higher return, but they just save that or pay down debt most of the time.

And employers..the goverment is "taking the burden off of them?" That is just bizarre. The government is practically waging war on employers, perhaps without even realizing it. They are uncertain. They need capital to reinvest. They want to know what's going to happen with taxes LONG TERM so they can hire. The two-year extension made things a little better, but not much. It may have prevented some layoffs, but it's not going to make a small businessman hire somebody new. Add to this the onerous web of restrictions and and bureaucracy, and the constant rhetoric of "eat the rich," and it's not hard to see that the government is waging war on businesses--at least from their perspective.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Lol.

So you really believe we spent $300,000 on each 2.8 million jobs lost. Something tells me you're not looking at the whole picture AT ALL!

Uh, that's exactly what we did, actually. We spent the money. We lost jobs. That's what happened, and there is no way around it. The stimulus did not result in one net new job. Not one. Sure, it propped things up somewhat...it prevented some people from losing their jobs temporarily, but that really did not do any good in the grand scheme. All it did was make my commute worse by creating needless construction projects fraught with waste. OK, that's an exaggeration, but the point remains. It did very little good in the short term, and actually did damage in the long-term. It created state and local government welfare. They continued to spend at unsustainable levels, and then had the rug pulled from under them this year when the stimulus expired. A lot of the stimulus was wasted on corruption, fraud and abuse.

It's all about one central theme: Government cannot create prosperity. It cannot create wealth. It can not spend the public's money better than they can. This is our country, not the government's. The American people are the ones that created the economic powerhouse this country still is. The government is the beneficiary of OUR hard work, not the other way around.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #277 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

My understanding of the estate tax is that it was created to prevent Rockefeller and Carnegie-like dynasties from forming--ones that would create almost a royal class, so to speak. The idea was to take half of that money and redistribute it. It's definitely wrong, morally speaking...but I believe that was the idea.








Not only does he not have to admit it...no one does. It's false. The government can only get out of the way. It can only help create the CONDITIONS that create opportunity...by getting out of the way.



No, they don't need money. They need shelter, food and clothing. Giving them cash is absolutely the wrong idea. It destroys work incentive and families. It creates a welfare state. What we need to do is change our welfare system from a financial need-based one to an ability-based one. Other than short-term unemployment insurance (which should cap at a year, max), if you have the mental and physical ABILITY to work, you should not get cash assistance in any circumstances. If you don't...that's different. Now, "what about the poor?" you ask. "They will starve!" No, they won't. We should set up food banks and clothing banks. If you can work, shelter is up to you. If not, we take care of you in relatively comfortable fashion....no luxuries really, but we'll take good care of you.



I really don't know what world you live in. The only time the government did anything like that was with the housing tax credit. That resulted in some people getting slightly more back than they paid. But for 2008 buyer, like me, it's a loan and has to be repaid over 15 years (500 per). For 2009 buyers, it's just a credit. Other than that, tax credits don't pump up people's income. It lets the government take less of what they already have. They might see a higher return, but they just save that or pay down debt most of the time.

And employers..the goverment is "taking the burden off of them?" That is just bizarre. The government is practically waging war on employers, perhaps without even realizing it. They are uncertain. They need capital to reinvest. They want to know what's going to happen with taxes LONG TERM so they can hire. The two-year extension made things a little better, but not much. It may have prevented some layoffs, but it's not going to make a small businessman hire somebody new. Add to this the onerous web of restrictions and and bureaucracy, and the constant rhetoric of "eat the rich," and it's not hard to see that the government is waging war on businesses--at least from their perspective.



Uh, that's exactly what we did, actually. We spent the money. We lost jobs. That's what happened, and there is no way around it. The stimulus did not result in one net new job. Not one. Sure, it propped things up somewhat...it prevented some people from losing their jobs temporarily, but that really did not do any good in the grand scheme. All it did was make my commute worse by creating needless construction projects fraught with waste. OK, that's an exaggeration, but the point remains. It did very little good in the short term, and actually did damage in the long-term. It created state and local government welfare. They continued to spend at unsustainable levels, and then had the rug pulled from under them this year when the stimulus expired. A lot of the stimulus was wasted on corruption, fraud and abuse.

It's all about one central theme: Government cannot create prosperity. It cannot create wealth. It can not spend the public's money better than they can. This is our country, not the government's. The American people are the ones that created the economic powerhouse this country still is. The government is the beneficiary of OUR hard work, not the other way around.

I sometimes wonder if the right leaning posters here would be so astonishingly right wing if they knew more.

Here's a link to explain to you what Obama pumped billions into- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earned_Income_Tax_Credit

About 30% of Obama's stimulus was tax cuts. I guess you don't think tax cuts creates ANY jobs...too much, really!
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #278 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

My understanding of the estate tax is that it was created to prevent Rockefeller and Carnegie-like dynasties from forming--ones that would create almost a royal class, so to speak. The idea was to take half of that money and redistribute it. It's definitely wrong, morally speaking...but I believe that was the idea.

Probably was the original idea. But, unsurprisingly, everyone's a now a "Rockefeller*" or a "Carnegie**." The income tax was originally only supposed to be for the "rich" too. Now we're all "rich."


*The Rockefeller family including and since "Senior" has been one of the most philanthropic perhaps in the history of the world. Additionally, did you know that Apple, Inc. owes its existence, at least in part, to the Rockefeller fortune? Early on Apple was funded by Venrock. Now, all that said, the Rockefellers have done some bad stuff. Helping to start The Fed is #1 on my list.

**I believe that Carnegie gave away most of his money.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #279 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

I sometimes wonder if the right leaning posters here would be so astonishingly right wing if they knew more.

I've often wonder the same about people on the left.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

About 30% of Obama's stimulus was tax cuts. I guess you don't think tax cuts creates ANY jobs...too much, really!

Actually it sorta depends on the type of tax cuts. The best tax cuts for economic and job growth will be those that end in new capital investment. This usually means tax cuts for the wealthier and for businesses. Now I believe all tax cuts are a good start. And I suspect that the Obama tax cuts prevented things from getting worse. But the spending and the general uncertainty created by his policies and rhetoric have created economic stagnation.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #280 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Here's a link to explain to you what Obama pumped billions into- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earned_Income_Tax_Credit

About 30% of Obama's stimulus was tax cuts. I guess you don't think tax cuts creates ANY jobs...too much, really!

The EITC was created in 1975 Hands. It is nothing more than an income redistribution program, furthermore, it is fraught with abuse. Many illegal aliens are alleged to benefit from it, but since the IRS does such a poor job of identifying fraudulent SS numbers the actual dollar amount of fraud is difficult to determine:

Quote:
Since they find a way to worm into any benefit program our government has, it is not surprising that illegal aliens are looting the EITC.

Furthermore, if it's such a great program then why did the Anointed One Himself propose eliminating it just eleven months ago?

Quote:
President Barack Obama will propose cutting or changing some 120 items in his budget for fiscal 2011 that will help save $20 billion this year, the White House said on Saturday.

One of the proposals would eliminate the "Advanced Earned Income Tax Credit," which allows eligible taxpayers with children to get a portion of the a tax credit paid out in their paychecks throughout the year. ... "This ineffective and prone-to-error program should be eliminated," White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer said in the statement.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

I sometimes wonder if the right leaning posters here would be so astonishingly right wing if they knew more.

I sometimes wonder if you read the very sources you cite.
A is A
Reply
A is A
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Obama Caves In