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.
Assuming you're correct however, the sole justification of the tax cuts as part of the stimulus bill were for job creation/retention. As such, you can't just arbitrarily take that out of the equation.
At the most optimistic number of 1.6 million and figuring "only" $300 billion, that still makes this bill one huge failure in terms of cost per job ($187,500). Add to that, most of these jobs are short term, nothing (or very little) has been done to ensure sustained job growth in the private sector. If the goal was job creation, we could have "created" a bunch of positions digging ditches, sweeping sidewalks, building trails in the national forests, working in National Parks, for what, $30k per year. So for that same $300 billion spent we could have "created" 10 million jobs.
I'm making a bit of an assumption here, that most jobs saved didn't actually draw a salary of $187,500 per year...so where did the rest of our tax money go that was spent under this bill?
Loads of it was corporate welfare for profitable industries, or as I like to call it, "CORPORATE DONOR CHUM"!
I guess it would be too simple and not offer enough leverage for social engineering, but if you really were serious about creating jobs, why not just offer a tax credit of X per employee for every business employing American workers? Our tax and regulatory policy currently provides a great incentive to take jobs overseas...until that is resolved there is no reason to expect manufacturing employment to rebound.
I agree ... well, I would say offering a tax credit to companies hiring new employees. We must also remember that public jobs have to fit in said stimulis too (education, police, etc).
Unfortunately, we also have to tip-toe around not being too "protectionist" in our actions (I actually think protectionism is a good thing, but just saying).
What would have been better, providing a $2500 tax incentive for ever NEW employee hired.
LOL. The only incentive that would provide would be toward coming up with new and unique ways to redefine an already existing job as a new job. That's why this idea was tossed on the scrap heap very early on.
I agree ... well, I would say offering a tax credit to companies hiring new employees. We must also remember that public jobs have to fit in said stimulis too (education, police, etc).
Unfortunately, we also have to tip-toe around not being too "protectionist" in our actions (I actually think protectionism is a good thing, but just saying).
I don't think this should only cover "new" employees. That would unfairly punish businesses with an established domestic workforce. With regard to public sector employement, I also would disagree-those are functions of the local or state government, not the feds.
When he campaigned in Ohio and the rust belt promising jobs and that theirs wouldn't be lost to outsourcing, he has done nothing.
All financial plans and promises -- particularly those regarding taxes -- had to be rethought by everyone after September 2008. It's a little unrealistic to think that a huge international financial collapse shouldn't have made any difference...
Loads of it was corporate welfare for profitable industries, or as I like to call it, "CORPORATE DONOR CHUM"!
The stimulus bill only requires that the use of competitive, fixed-price contracts be maximized. It doesn't require that they be used exclusively. Your link is to the outliers -- dutifully reported by the administration in the name of transparency.
Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey
Keep in mind that we passed the larged federal budget EVER last year making this all in addition to that.
Given inflation and population increases, how often would you EXPECT that the next federal budget would not be the largest one ever???
state employees are already propped up by the taxpayers.
What she said
Why would we want to stimulate more jobs to be paid for by the taxpayer? Once the stim money runs out the state or local taxpayers are left holding the bill. I'd much rather see actions that stimulate long-term private sector growth, which actually leads to wealth creation.
Why would we want to stimulate more jobs to be paid for by the taxpayer? Once the stim money runs out the state or local taxpayers are left holding the bill. I'd much rather see actions that stimulate long-term private sector growth, which actually leads to wealth creation.
So you guys (or gals, I don't know) would be okay with massive teacher layoffs and massive public sector layoffs (affecting unemployment), as long as the private sector receives federal funds and picks up its pieces?
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.
