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.
For the sake of argument, I said assume no tax increases or spending increases. The only way that you could give everyone money is to increase the debt or raise taxes. So what other ideas do you have.
Wrong, allowing people to keep more of their own money doesnt necessarily increase the debt because if they spend it, it gets taxed as it cycles through the economy producing jobs.
why can't we partner the government and private sector in repairing the infrastructure that was completed during the Roosevelt administration. Those were incredible projects that put the whole country back to work. But obviously one side doesn't like "government" at all...for any reason...and the private sector cannot afford to do it alone. A partnership sounds very reasonable. There must be hundreds of thousands of jobs that could be created and our infrastructure would be updated, new and safe for many generations to come. I would like to say this was my brilliant plan, but alas, I just heard it from someone else on TV. But I was very impressed by the thought.
You need to educate yourself a little better about the Roosevelt administration and the economic affects which happened due to his policies. Like a DECADE of 10%+ unemployment rates.. You are impressed by 10%+ unemployment? I'm not.
From the ABC piece:
That still overstates the $$$/job because it excludes the fact that dollars also paid for construction materials, buildings, etc. and not just personnel.
Just goes to show what a waste stimulus was, and by extension how flawed keynsianism is. Not only did it cost a ridiculous amount per job. As you rightly point out much of the spending had nothing to do with job creation. Which is inevitable.
That doesn't even count for unfunded liabilities which that outlook will get even worse when they start cutting the budget. The whole reason they're not anymore money is because they've already been told by the investors in us that they're nervous about the future of America.
Ah, the invisible confidence fairy. In the real world, investors voice nervousness about the future by demanding higher rates, which is not happening.
No, Republicans are interested in spending cuts because they were against the social safety net from the beginning (remember Bush wanted to privatize Social Security as soon as he won re-elected?) and this is a convenient excuse to inflict cuts. If they were so interested in the budget they wouldn't insist that tax increases are off the table. A problem can't be so dire that it requires pain for the middle class programs but not so dire that we can't ask the well to do to chip in. it's just phony.
Ah, the invisible confidence fairy. In the real world, investors voice nervousness about the future by demanding higher rates, which is not happening.
No, Republicans are interested in spending cuts because they were against the social safety net from the beginning (remember Bush wanted to privatize Social Security as soon as he won re-elected?) and this is a convenient excuse to inflict cuts. If they were so interested in the budget they wouldn't insist that tax increases are off the table. A problem can't be so dire that it requires pain for the middle class programs but not so dire that we can't ask the well to do to chip in. it's just phony.
Yeah, the Republicans have no concern about a $14 trillion deficit.
Yeah, the Republicans have no concern about a $14 trillion deficit.
Actually, that is correct. The last Bush budget was a deficit of $1.3 trillion but no Republicans balked because that was their man Bush. Prior to that, there were large deficits for every year that Bush was president. The same thing for his father and Reagan before that.
The first time Republicans seemed to wake up to deficits was when Obama was elected. Then, they all became deficit hawks, even though we were in the middle of a recession -- when deficits shouldn't be the main focus.
Their hypocrisy becomes crystal clear when they talk about the dire state of the debt, then dismiss raising taxes on hedge fund billionaires a single penny. How can people simultaneously demand savage cuts in Medicare and Medicaid and defend special tax breaks favoring hedge fund managers and owners of corporate jets? The answer of course is that their outrage over the debt has nothing to do with caring about debts and deficits. It's about dismantling government programs they've always hated.
Actually, that is correct. The last Bush budget was a deficit of $1.3 trillion but no Republicans balked because that was their man Bush. Prior to that, there were large deficits for every year that Bush was president. The same thing for his father and Reagan before that.
The first time Republicans seemed to wake up to deficits was when Obama was elected. Then, they all became deficit hawks, even though we were in the middle of a recession -- when deficits shouldn't be the main focus.
Their hypocrisy becomes crystal clear when they talk about the dire state of the debt, then dismiss raising taxes on hedge fund billionaires a single penny. How can people simultaneously demand savage cuts in Medicare and Medicaid and defend special tax breaks favoring hedge fund managers and owners of corporate jets? The answer of course is that their outrage over the debt has nothing to do with caring about debts and deficits. It's about dismantling government programs they've always hated.
LOl, you do have a vivid imagination. The republicans controlled the all the levers of government for 6 years, so what did they do? The expanded Medicare a program you suggest they hate. Kinda demolishes your argument.
The Bush deficits were kid stuff compared to the enormous deficits Obama has saddled us with.
what we need to do is have US investment opportunities. we need US savings bonds that pay higher than normal interest (which wouldn't be hard), where the investment money is channeled only into american start up businesses, producing only american goods and services. that would have the dual benefit of providing people who invest in their country a method of increasing savings, as well as helping small businesses and providing new jobs.
we could also use a national lottery, where the money is channeled into small business growth. this, of course, would be less effective because we know that the government hasn't done that well with school lottery money, but at least it would be another thing.
i also do think that we need to streamline the tax industry, as another poster suggested. it is too complicated and too easy to commit tax fraud. (as we saw by our own treasury secretary)
Last edited by floridasandy; 07-08-2011 at 05:17 AM..
Actually, that is correct. The last Bush budget was a deficit of $1.3 trillion but no Republicans balked because that was their man Bush. Prior to that, there were large deficits for every year that Bush was president. The same thing for his father and Reagan before that.
The first time Republicans seemed to wake up to deficits was when Obama was elected. Then, they all became deficit hawks, even though we were in the middle of a recession -- when deficits shouldn't be the main focus.
Their hypocrisy becomes crystal clear when they talk about the dire state of the debt, then dismiss raising taxes on hedge fund billionaires a single penny. How can people simultaneously demand savage cuts in Medicare and Medicaid and defend special tax breaks favoring hedge fund managers and owners of corporate jets? The answer of course is that their outrage over the debt has nothing to do with caring about debts and deficits. It's about dismantling government programs they've always hated.
obama gave the corporate jet discount and he also extended the bush tax cuts. there is hypocrisy on both sides.
i think you might agree that there are government programs that do need to be dismantled as they are either duplicate programs or wasteful programs.
i also think that government workers should NOT be allowed to retire after 20 years because they suck even more money out of the system faster, and can get another job and double dip. (which should be outlawed when we have a job shortage-talk about greedy!)
Where did the stimulus go? Some went directly to the banks to bail them out, if that money had gone to the banks through the people that owed them the money then it would have helped everyone.
First off stimulus did not go to banks, TARP did.
Second, TARP was paid back with interest.
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.
