Perchoutofwater Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 Jimmy keep fighting the good fight. You make perfect sense to anyone who doesn't approve of the socialization of our country. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cunning Runt Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 (edited) Jimmy keep fighting the good fight. You make perfect sense to anyone who doesn't approve of the socialization of our country. Because the way things are/were is working so well huh? Edited February 4, 2009 by Cunning Runt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 Because the way things are/were is working so well huh? The way things were worked just fine until we started giving loans to people that couldn't afford them, and Fannie and Freddie failed. Who's job was it to oversee them? Who received the most money from them? Socialism does not help pull an economy out of the crapper, FDR extended the great depression by his social programs, the Japanese have recently shown it does not work. Had the government not gotten involved in saying who should get loans, we wouldn't be in this mess. We need less government, not more. If you want regulation fine, regulate by thou shalt not, not by telling industry what to do. You or others point to the failing auto industry, but the failing auto industry would have squashed the unions a long time ago had it not been for the governments involvement. Any time the government gets involved it leads to inefficiencies. Our government was set up to protect us from foreign invaders, and from civil unrest. It was set up to make sure all the states treated each state the same in commerce. That was it, it wasn't supposed to be the abomination that it is today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cunning Runt Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 (edited) The way things were worked just fine until we started giving loans to people that couldn't afford them, and Fannie and Freddie failed. Who's job was it to oversee them? Who received the most money from them? Socialism does not help pull an economy out of the crapper, FDR extended the great depression by his social programs, the Japanese have recently shown it does not work. Had the government not gotten involved in saying who should get loans, we wouldn't be in this mess. We need less government, not more. If you want regulation fine, regulate by thou shalt not, not by telling industry what to do. You or others point to the failing auto industry, but the failing auto industry would have squashed the unions a long time ago had it not been for the governments involvement. Any time the government gets involved it leads to inefficiencies. Our government was set up to protect us from foreign invaders, and from civil unrest. It was set up to make sure all the states treated each state the same in commerce. That was it, it wasn't supposed to be the abomination that it is today. I don't think you can attribute all this to the mortgage industry. This is bigger than that. The mortgage industry may have been the giant straw that broke the camel's back, but in general, the way we do and have done things is in a general state of change. Unions, Industry vs. Service based employment, Credit (including mortgages, credit cards, auto loans, etc.), Energy Independence - all kinds of things are undergoing major, major change. For my part, I do want my government to take the leadership role in helping to stabilize things as we undergo what I see as an historic transition. If that means a more hands-on approach than I would have liked even two years ago. I'm good with that. I'm republican pretty much across the board and I expect I will be again, but for now, we need to accept the fact that nothing will ever be the same again and frankly it's for the better, but it's gonna be a painful experience getting there. Edited February 4, 2009 by Cunning Runt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Beatings Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 None of this stuff is really stimulatory, so why all of the exigency and doom and gloom calls for this to go thorugh right now? Why not just tack an additional $1 Trillion onto the regular Federal budget? Because let's face it, that's all this really is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I Like Soup Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 I think the whole point is that the jobs are temporary. At least that's how I always considered it. The jobs created by the infrastructure improvements do two things in my estimation: 1. It puts people back to work now and helps millions of Americans now. 2. It does this in a way where we as a country derive some tangible benefit. I think the expectation is that once the economy gets going again in a year or two and companies start hiring again, the unemployed will be re-absorbed back into permanent jobs, but at least a good number of folks will be earning a paycheck in the interim doing productive work for the country. I hear several people on these boards complain about the package and its intent. A couple things - I've gotta think the people making these decisions are a helluva lot smarter than you, me, or anyone on these boards. And I also think we need to give our newly elected president a chance to try to do something before we criticize so off-handedly. I think we all need to look at the bigger picture - not just what's in our own personal best interests. I don't have any answers of my own - nor do I profess to. This is a f'd up situation we're in. This is more than just a recession or depresion or anything with a name on it. This to me is a complete re-set of how we do things pretty much across the board. Unprecedented type stuff. While I don't disagree with what you say to a point, I will also point out those people that are a helluva lot smarter than you and I are 1. Very much removed from the day to day financial grind of life that normal Americans are, and 2. Have other interests outside of focusing on the issue and doing the right thing (for example, a couple million dollars to a wooden practice arrow company in the Northwest in the first stimulus package). While I don't profess to have the answers and certainly see the folks in DC as a priviledged and intelligent group of individuals, politicians have proven time and again that they have very strong personal motives that don't always have the public interest at heart. And...I like Obama and am really rooting for him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cunning Runt Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 None of this stuff is really stimulatory, so why all of the exigency and doom and gloom calls for this to go thorugh right now? Why not just tack an additional $1 Trillion onto the regular Federal budget? Because let's face it, that's all this really is. Disagree - it puts some people back to work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted February 4, 2009 Author Share Posted February 4, 2009 I think the whole point is that the jobs are temporary. At least that's how I always considered it. The jobs created by the infrastructure improvements do two things in my estimation: 1. It puts people back to work now and helps millions of Americans now. 2. It does this in a way where we as a country derive some tangible benefit. I think the expectation is that once the economy gets going again in a year or two and companies start hiring again, the unemployed will be re-absorbed back into permanent jobs, but at least a good number of folks will be earning a paycheck in the interim doing productive work for the country. I hear several people on these boards complain about the package and its intent. A couple things - I've gotta think the people making these decisions are a helluva lot smarter than you, me, or anyone on these boards. And I also think we need to give our newly elected president a chance to try to do something before we criticize so off-handedly. I think we all need to look at the bigger picture - not just what's in our own personal best interests. I don't have any answers of my own - nor do I profess to. This is a f'd up situation we're in. This is more than just a recession or depresion or anything with a name on it. This to me is a complete re-set of how we do things pretty much across the board. Unprecedented type stuff. Here's the problem though: When have you EVER known government to actually cut spending? To cut one program to give to another, sure. But cut spending overall? These are items that once given, won't be so easy to retract. Think about this hard - also included in this bill is more tax credits to people who don't pay taxes, i.e., welfare payments. Do you really think the politicians will be able to take those away once they're started? Or cut funding to this or that program? This is going to add (once you figure in the debt service) well over $1 trillion new dollars to the federal budget. Where is that coming from? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 (edited) I completely see where you are coming from, although it isn't as black and white as you are painting. Some of that funding can easily be argued as duties that our government should and only could undertake (again, maybe misplaced in an economic stimulus package). in other words, the goal of much of the stuff in this bill isn't so much stimulating the economy as it is expanding the government. and to some of us, that is EXACTLY the problem. Edited February 4, 2009 by Azazello1313 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Beatings Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 Disagree - it puts some people back to work. Most of the money doesn't get spent for years to come. If you want jobs, wouldn't you want them now? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 You or others point to the failing auto industry, but the failing auto industry would have squashed the unions a long time ago had it not been for the governments involvement. How great would THAT be? While there are very valid points to be made about the unions in the auto industry (and the agreements the auto industry mistakenly and stupidly signed), your statement above smacks of nostalgia for the Gilded Age. Maybe the National Guard could be called out to kill strikers while we're about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H8tank Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 Las Vegas, which by some accounts already glitters, wants $2 million for neon signs. Boynton Beach, Fla., is looking for $4.5 million for an "eco park" featuring butterfly gardens and gopher tortoises. And Chula Vista, Calif., would like $500,000 to create a place for dogs to run off the leash. These are among 18,750 projects listed in "Ready to Go," the U.S. Conference of Mayors' wish list for funding from the stimulus bill moving through Congress. The group asked cities and towns to suggest "shovel ready" projects for the report, which it gave to Congress and the Obama administration. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123369271403544637.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Neutron Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 in other words, the goal of much of the stuff in this bill isn't so much stimulating the economy as it is expanding the government. and to some of us, that is EXACTLY the problem. Bingo. I wish everyone would stop and think about this rather than buying into the fear-mongering that is so in vogue today. We haven't even spent the 2nd half of the $700 billion bailout from last Oct. or evaluated the effects of the $350 billion spent. We're talking about spending another 1.3 trillion (with interest) with little thought and evaluation about how this is all supposed to work. The proposal is to further bloat government agencies with more cash to create jobs. Are government agencies known for doing this well??? This funding is for a few years in the longest case and would require further spending down the road to keep all of the government jobs they're creating. I do think congress is full of perfectly bright people. Unfortunately, like in most large groups, they morph into something less than intelligent in a thoroughly corrupt culture. Group think in its most benign form is horribly damaging to the creative and problem solving processes. The system congress has fermented into is hideous. How can these intelligent people be voting on 500+ page legislation barely printed the night before the vote? The problem is that they vote based on alliances, favors and other motivations external to the legislation at hand. I don't think I'm smarter than all of the folks on the Hill, but I do think I'm smart enough and more importantly have the responsibility - to question the folks elected to represent my interests. I think they're way off track and a bill like the one they're batting around right now will cause more problems down the road than it will solve in the short term. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 . The proposal is to further bloat government agencies with more cash to create jobs. Assuming that every penny dedicated to govt agencies would simply be going to bloat agencies that would have zero or negative effect on the economy or benefit on the people is probably not accurate. What percentage of the stimulus is dedicated to govt agencies and how much to private enterprise? I'm having a very hard time relating to you guys focusing on this when the elephant in the room is getting almost completely dismissed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Neutron Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 Assuming that every penny dedicated to govt agencies would simply be going to bloat agencies that would have zero or negative effect on the economy or benefit on the people is probably not accurate. What percentage of the stimulus is dedicated to govt agencies and how much to private enterprise? I'm having a very hard time relating to you guys focusing on this when the elephant in the room is getting almost completely dismissed. It's hard to pin the numbers down because the legislation is evolving. The last numbers I saw on CNN showed about 55% of the money going to one type of government agency or another. 30% in tax cuts and 15% infrastructure (private jobs). I don't mean to appear I'm ignoring the elephant in the room. I also know that when shooting a charging elephant, a barrage of careless gunfire will usually render you thick gooey stuff between the elephant's toes. One well executed head shot is a much better tactic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 IThe last numbers I saw on CNN showed about 55% of the money going to one type of government agency or another. 30% in tax cuts and 15% infrastructure (private jobs). Well that definitely puts the criticism into perspective. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 I think the rosiest estimate I've heard from any democrat is that this "stimulus" will save or create between 3 and 4 million jobs. that means under the best case scenario, we're paying $1 trillion to create 4 million jobs -- which I believe works out to $250,000 per job. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 I think the rosiest estimate I've heard from any democrat is that this "stimulus" will save or create between 3 and 4 million jobs. that means under the best case scenario, we're paying $1 trillion to create 4 million jobs -- which I believe works out to $250,000 per job. How many people work in defense? That has a trillion dollar budget also. It'd be interesting to compare. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T-Scorp Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 I think the rosiest estimate I've heard from any democrat is that this "stimulus" will save or create between 3 and 4 million jobs. that means under the best case scenario, we're paying $1 trillion to create 4 million jobs -- which I believe works out to $250,000 per job. Simple math but how long will those jobs be around. IF they average 5 years that's $50,000 per job (not sure if benefits are involved) and that is not too bad. Lets also assume that labor runs around 50% of the expense of any project so you can readjust the number to $125,000 per job, and then put an avrage number of years out there so $50,000 per job for 2 and 1/2 years or $25,000 for 5 years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted February 4, 2009 Author Share Posted February 4, 2009 Simple math but how long will those jobs be around. IF they average 5 years that's $50,000 per job (not sure if benefits are involved) and that is not too bad. Lets also assume that labor runs around 50% of the expense of any project so you can readjust the number to $125,000 per job, and then put an avrage number of years out there so $50,000 per job for 2 and 1/2 years or $25,000 for 5 years. So those of us prepared for bad/worse times get to pay for those who aren't. "Only" $50K per job? In the private sector people are typically hired to allow a company to make more money. The fact that this is even considered is just making me Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H8tank Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 Change you can believe in!!! Support for Stimulus Package Falls to 37% Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 state-by-state Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Neutron Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 state-by-state That's all well and good, but to the best of my knowledge just the WH plan - neither the bill the House passed or the one the Senate is currently debating. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 state-by-state all yours for a low, low cost of over $10,000 per income tax paying household! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Neutron Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 Why are we funding the 2010 census with a stimulus bill? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.