Obama Caves In - Page 7

Originally Posted by john galt

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.

Originally Posted by john galt

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.

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon

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.

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon

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.

Originally Posted by john galt

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.

Originally Posted by MJ1970

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.

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon

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.

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon

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.

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon

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

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon

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

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon

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

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon

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.

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon

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...

Originally Posted by john galt

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.

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

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon


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

Originally Posted by jimmac

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

Originally Posted by john galt

Thank you for your contribution to the debate

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.

Originally Posted by jimmac

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

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon

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?

Originally Posted by MJ1970

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.

Originally Posted by gerald apple

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.

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon

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!

Originally Posted by john galt

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

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon

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

"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

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon

... 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.

Originally Posted by MJ1970

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

Originally Posted by gerald apple

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.

Originally Posted by jazzguru


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

Originally Posted by jazzguru

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

Originally Posted by gerald apple

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.

Originally Posted by gerald apple

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.

Originally Posted by gerald apple

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

Originally Posted by gerald apple

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

Originally Posted by john galt

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):

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.

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon

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.[

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon

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!

Originally Posted by SDW2001

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.

Originally Posted by SDW2001

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.

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon

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

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon

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

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon

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!

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon

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