Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Its called a saturation point. You cant lay off teachers, police, fire, stores need a minimum skeleton crew to stay open etc.. How high do you think its possible to get unemployment to anymore considering all of the people paid not to work?
This should be good.. Tell me then where the money comes to pay for it? Come on.. I want an answer to this one for sure.. I
I want an answer to where the money came from to fund the wars that Bush started in Afghanistan and Iraq. Oh wait, it came from China, and the money that is paying to keep a roof over our head until my partner finds a job, is probably coming from China as well. They own us lock stock and barrel, and the interest alone is making them rich. Otherwise we would be S.O.L.
Obama is a republican. Siding with the 900 billion dollar spending plan the republicans are pushing is ridiculous. The left need to stand their ground and let everything expire. Spending is the worst thing we can do now.
That is rich!
Remind me again who has racked up the largest ever annual spending deficits in the history of the US over the last four years? Perhaps that was the democratic congress.
I am shocked that a liberal would ever even breathe a hint of fiscal control without blushing.
PS- tax cuts are not federal spending. They are a means of preventing federal spending.
tax cuts are not federal spending. They are a means of preventing federal spending.
No tax cuts of recent, has prevented the government from federal spending. That's why we have a deficit
Any deficit is a tax increase, if it's expected to be paid back.
I guess we can all have lower taxes and never pay it back
You will only prevent federal spending by a balanced
budget amendment. Congress simply can't control
themselves
I want an answer to where the money came from to fund the wars that Bush started in Afghanistan and Iraq. Oh wait, it came from China, and the money that is paying to keep a roof over our head until my partner finds a job, is probably coming from China as well. They own us lock stock and barrel, and the interest alone is making them rich. Otherwise we would be S.O.L.
Actually China has cut back on buying US debt.
That is why the Fed stepped in to print money to buy Treasuries.
We're buying our own debt now with printed up money.
No tax cuts of recent, has prevented the government from federal spending. That's why we have a deficit
Any deficit is a tax increase, if it's expected to be paid back.
I guess we can all have lower taxes and never pay it back
You will only prevent federal spending by a balanced
budget amendment. Congress simply can't control
themselves
But what we've learned from numerous liberals here, it doesnt matter about the future. It doesnt matter if it results in tax increases down the road. It doesnt matter if current actions come at the expense of future negative GDP growth. I obviously disagree with this, but until we get the voters to care about long term ramifications of Congressional actions, then we cant expect Congress to..
I want an answer to where the money came from to fund the wars that Bush started in Afghanistan and Iraq. Oh wait, it came from China, and the money that is paying to keep a roof over our head until my partner finds a job, is probably coming from China as well. They own us lock stock and barrel, and the interest alone is making them rich. Otherwise we would be S.O.L.
Its not Chinas fault that they invest and we spend.. THATS OURS.. So spare me the boo hoo hoooing about China buying our debt..
But what we've learned from numerous liberals here, it doesnt matter about the future. It doesnt matter if it results in tax increases down the road. It doesnt matter if current actions come at the expense of future negative GDP growth. I obviously disagree with this, but until we get the voters to care about long term ramifications of Congressional actions, then we cant expect Congress to..
You do realize the republicans want to add 900 billion dollars to the deficit while most on the left are trying to fight that ridiculous spending,..
If that were actually TRUE, then we should be rooting for MORE people to lose their jobs and start collecting UE benefits, right, right?
See, what obama and the Left fail to realize is that people collecting UE are living pay check to pay check, buying the essentials like food, paying their bills, just getting by. They don't have the money for those extras or luxury items.
These are NOT the circumstances or the segment of the population that will boost the economy, get it rolling again. The people who will give a real jolt to the economy are the ones who are working, but due to uncertainty, anxiety and fear, are holding back on spending above and beyond the essentials. Like decorations for the house, new clothes for the kids they might not actually need, vacations over the Christmas break, spending more on entertainment, movies, dinners. The kind of people who have the money for those extras but have decided to NOT cut loose........kind of like me.
The man and his circle of advisers are truly clueless, but what can you expect when the vast majority of them haven't ever run a business or had private sector work experience.
After spending over $3 trillions, and have nothing to show off, and all they could come up is, well, more spending.
You do realize the republicans want to add 900 billion dollars to the deficit while most on the left are trying to fight that ridiculous spending,..
Ahh no.. Typical left wing spinning based upon nonsensical bs.. Cutting taxes does NOT add to the deficit.. SPENDING does.. But even if what you said was true, liberals have no problem increasing the national deficit by $800B+, its only the minority part of the "spending" which you disagree with.. Either it causes deficits, thereby it causes them by ALL not paying, or it doesnt, thereby it shouldnt target one class of society over another.
Are you now asking that 47% of americans have their taxes raised because again, if a lack of income to the federal government causes deficits, then surely you believe that everyone should have their taxes raised right? Heck.. Why not tax the poor at 100%, we can give them welfare, and then tax it back. It'll balance the budget almost immediately right?
I often ask myself how on gods earth liberals can believe this ****.. yes, its ****.. I'm not sure if its a basic lack of economics, accounting, or even basic elementary math.. Whatever it is you guys need to educate yourself on the fact that you OVER SPENDING is what creates financial problems.. Lets put it this way, is one poor a less important member of society even though they bring in less revenues than the rich? I could speak for you and say you would agree the answer to this is no.. So you admit that a lack of income isnt the problem.. Now tell me whats left? SPENDING!!!
Where did you guys learn that its more important to increase federal revenues than societies? Someone nees to be SHOT for teaching you guys this bull crap!!!
Where the hell do you think it is? I've asked you now twice if you thought it was being kept under a mattress.. Where is it? It sounds good and all, until you actually have to respond with FACTS, dont it?
Not discussing the war, but if you claim unemployment is a stimulus, then clearly the wars are one as well right? Soldiers are PAID are they not? Machinery is PURCHASED is it not? Should we be invading Canada now? Think of the economic stimulus that'll create ha?
I'm not.. Again, where does the government get the money from? How many times will I need to ask this of you before you respond?
Ahh no.. money is borrowed and paid back later.. The fact that the economic "boom" took place at the same time government was contracting I would think would teach you something.. Sadly, obviously it didnt..
Wrong.. I counted January of the beginning year to December of another.. thats a FULL YEAR. This would INCLUDE seasonably adjusted jobs.. Again, are you math challenged that you cant do the math?
Clearly you have no business experience because I've NEVER made them month by month, or even months ahead of time. Businesses plan YEARS, sometimes DECADES ahead because the capital costs of expansion is too costly to go month by month. You adjust your plan as time moves forward but only a fool wings it month by month, especially considering it costs millions upon millions for capital expenditures. Hell, I'm planning to buy a $125,000 printer and I had to plan out 5 years before I could justify it.. and yes, tax consequences was indeed part of the consideration..
Thats bull crap.. the seasonable job losses would be subtracted the following month.. If I hire 5 people for this month for seasonal work and they get laid off next month, they are subtracted from next months totals. The figures posted are the NET POSITIVE job growth.. You are arguing bs to try to spin numbers into something they arent. Its a NET JOB TOTAL which is being counted.. If I went into another month it would be falsifiying data, but even if I did, the NET POSITIVE JOB GROWTH was OVER 10,000,000 jobs.. Who are you trying to kid here? You might be able to pass this bs off on some liberal but I'm not that stupid. I learned how to add in elementary school
"There is no argument that the President's plan would raise taxes on half of the small business income in the United States, according to the non-partisan Joint Tax Committee. Why do Washington Democrats want to raise taxes on anyone -- especially small businesses -- in a struggling economy? If Speaker Pelosi allows a fair debate and vote in the House, we're confident that our plan to stop all of the tax hikes would prevail."
Thats HUGE.. and 1/2 of all small business income represents a hell of a lot of employees.. Even if you pretend it doesnt because 80% of all individuals effected are small business owners.
CBOs basic assumption is that, in the long run, each dollar of additional debt crowds out about a third of a dollars worth of private domestic capital, CBO said in its letter.
If the government is spending $100B, then $300B is removed from the economy which cant be spent. Take this to the stimulus, that $1T stimulus bill, which removed $3T from the economy.. How the hell do you expect the economy to grow with nothing left?
You can shout for joy over temporary boosts in the economy over things like the stimulus, unemployment extensions but other than short term, its a negative stimulator. Even the CBO admitted this when discussing the stimulus package, but you didnt hear that from Obama did you? From the same link CBO estimates that by 2019 the Senate legislation would reduce GDP by 0.1 percent to 0.3 percent on net.
The same is true for unemployment because IT NEEDS PAID BACK..
CBO, the official scorekeepers for legislation, said the House and Senate bills will help in the short term but result in so much government debt that within a few years they would crowd out private investment, actually leading to a lower Gross Domestic Product over the next 10 years than if the government had done nothing.
You can celebrate short term gains at long term expenses, I choose not to. I prefer real solutions..
When you give $1 to people who have lost their jobs and they have run out of savings, those dollars get spent. So Mary gives it to Mike down the street to buy some of his fruits and vegetables. Mike, who relies on customers like Mary, might put 25 cents in the bank but use the rest to buy seed and fertilizer from Tom's store in town. Tom might save a dime of the 75 cents he got from Mike but use the remaining 60 cents for a new pair of glasses.
When economists calculate the gross domestic product, they add up all those transactions (excluding the amount set aside in savings and money that ends up overseas if you buy foreign goods). In this limited example, Mary's $1 has added $2.35 ($1 plus 75 cents plus 60 cents) to the gross domestic product. Yes, it's still just $1, but by passing it along it has helped three people.
This may seem like a strange way of looking at things until you imagine the opposite situation, where the economy goes bad and we stop paying unemployment benefits.
Quote:
David Weil, a professor of economics at Brown University who explained the CBO numbers to us, stressed that this isn't always a good idea. It doesn't work when the economy is robust and unemployment is low.
<sniped>
It's true that the government has to borrow money (adding to the national debt) to make this work, Weil said. "Someday your kids or grandkids are going to be paying back that debt. We don't know whether it's going to look like the 1950s and '60s, when we grew out of the debt from World War II in a relatively painless fashion, or whether it's going to look like Greece."
<sniped>Langevin's...
His spokeswoman, Joy Fox, said, "I would change his statement going forward to 'up to $1.90' or 'between 70 cents and $1.90 goes back into the economy.' "
She also cited other studies where economists have offered very specific numbers that are closer to the $1.90 CBO estimate. For example, Mark Zandi, chief economist for Moody's Analytics and a former adviser to John McCain during his 2008 presidential run, puts the benefit at $1.61.
We won't see the benefits we should, because our government has grown too damed big. However, I believe there is a trend growing where more and more people are looking for work in the government, so it is logical they will continue to jobs for them and grow.
Quote:
Not discussing the war, but if you claim unemployment is a stimulus, then clearly the wars are one as well right? Soldiers are PAID are they not? Machinery is PURCHASED is it not? Should we be invading Canada now? Think of the economic stimulus that'll create ha?
Perhaps we should be.
Quote:
In calendar year 1941, Federal government expenditures amounted to 16.4 percent of Gross Domestic Product. It did not go unnoticed that the economy seemed to thrive. The unemployment rate in 1941 is estimated to have been 9.9 percent, the lowest since 1930. What followed seemed to be a testimonial to the efficacy of the Keynes-Hansen analysis. With all-out mobilization, government spending surged and the unemployment rate plummeted, falling to as low as 1.2 percent in 1944.
The impact of World War II on the American economy was widely interpreted as a vindication of Keynesian economic principles. This suggested that it was possible to manage the overall economy through a judicious use of public spending. It also strongly implied that problems might lie ahead as the war reached its climax. In particular, what would happen to the American economy when the massive military expenditures of the war years were no longer necessary.
The Impact of the Welfare State on the American Economy (http://www.house.gov/jec/welstate/vg-1/vg-1.htm - broken link)
I can't help but think that Bush thought the war on terrorism would bring the same result on our economy as it did during the time of WW II, however, what was missed between now and then, is now, the war was outsourced over seas. Factories were built over seas. Factory workers were put to work, over seas. This is the result of our globalization. Perhaps when other nation's economy stabilize ours will follow suit.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
and never pay it back
Half Truths
