What TARP money for jobs???

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Bullshit! Congress can rescind their appropriation of the funds at ANY time! They should do exactly THAT, given the President himself, admits the TARP funds have served their purpose! Oh, okay, so you don't need this anymore to bail out America's financial sector? Good... we can reduce the National DEBT!

Spending it on a jobs bill is better investment than downpaying the debt.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

LOL. That's like saying that they didn't actually vote to allow the war because they can later vote to rescind that approval. It's silly. They gave 100% control to one man. Yeah, they can vote to remove that, but until then Obama has only one man to convince to legally spend that money.

The people who have had control over that money is Bernanke and then Geithner, no others. And if Geithner wanted to tell Obama to take a flying leap he could.

Well, first of all, I don't accept that Congress just gave the money to the SEC without any oversight on how it was to be spent. The legislation was full of specific spending measures, and the SEC may have been given oversight of a portion of it, but the bill certainly delineates what money goes where, and for what. If things have now changed, and there isn't a 'need' for that money, it belongs to the US Taxpayer, not the SEC or Barrack Obama!

That's if you can make an argument that the money actually exists! We are trillions in the red... where did this money mysteriously come from? That's right, it's money we don't have... we either borrowed it or printed it!

 

[Damocles]

Well, first of all, I don't accept that Congress just gave the money to the SEC without any oversight on how it was to be spent. The legislation was full of specific spending measures, and the SEC may have been given oversight of a portion of it, but the bill certainly delineates what money goes where, and for what. If things have now changed, and there isn't a 'need' for that money, it belongs to the US Taxpayer, not the SEC or Barrack Obama!

That's if you can make an argument that the money actually exists! We are trillions in the red... where did this money mysteriously come from? That's right, it's money we don't have... we either borrowed it or printed it!

You don't accept that fact? You are just denying reality now. They didn't even give themselves any means of oversight. When they asked for an accounting, the FED told them to take a flying leap, legally. It may be that the money doesn't exist, but it doesn't change anything of what I have said not even one little iota.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Spending it on a jobs bill is better investment than downpaying the debt.

Perhaps, but let CONGRESS adopt a Jobs Bill!!! I have no problem with our Congress debating a bill to create jobs... don't know if I would support one, it would depend on what measures would be taken to 'create jobs' and I would have to evaluate that and make the determination. This is why we have a system, this is what we elect a Congress to do!

This is not about what is being done, it is about HOW it is being done!

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

You don't accept that fact? You are just denying reality now. They didn't even give themselves any means of oversight. When they asked for an accounting, the FED told them to take a flying leap, legally. It may be that the money doesn't exist, but it doesn't change anything of what I have said not even one little iota.

So you are saying the long list of "items" in the bill (akaORK), was actually NOT in the bill they passed, and they actually just passed a bill to GIVE the SEC $785 billion to do with as they pleased? All of the text documents outlining where all the money would be spent, which states would get what... that was all fabricated for our amusement, while Congress turned over the checkbook to the SEC?? Is that what you are telling me, Damo?

 

[Damocles]

So you are saying the long list of "items" in the bill (akaORK), was actually NOT in the bill they passed, and they actually just passed a bill to GIVE the SEC $785 billion to do with as they pleased? All of the text documents outlining where all the money would be spent, which states would get what... that was all fabricated for our amusement, while Congress turned over the checkbook to the SEC?? Is that what you are telling me, Damo?

TARP gave the FED, specifically the FED Chair, total control over a specific amount of cash without any specifics on how to spend the money. Bernanke, and now Geithner, can spend that money without restriction. So long as Obama can convince Geithner to spend it the way he wants it spent, it is legal for him to spend it that way. It was one of my main arguments against TARP, it is reality, and there is nothing you can do to change it except convince the Congress to take back their power by voting on new legislation.

The pork was added to, it didn't take away from, the spending power of the FED Chair. It didn't even matter to them that the money didn't exist or that they were once again ceding their own constitutional authority to another branch of government.

Good luck. I don't think that even TEA party activists will be able to convince people who want to be able to blame somebody else to take responsibility for their action. And people like Apple will cheerfully attempt to lay the blame at the feet of anybody except the people who actually had control of the purse strings...

 

[Onceler]

With this administration, what difference does it make? They are going to claim some outrageous number of [mythical] jobs they have created, (even though we continue to lose jobs) they are lying about that now, why wouldn't they do it for the election?

The biggest point of contention I have, is a fundamental disagreement with the administration on how to create jobs! If we fritter away billions on 'make-work' projects that dry up and blow away when the money runs out, it's not doing much for our job problems or economy! These are debates best suited for Congress and The People, not left to the will of the sitting President!

By their very nature, many of the jobs they can create are temporary.

The idea is just to get people working; when people are working, they spend money. When they spend money, businesses do well, and hopefully, a more positive cycle can start whereby they can begin hiring again, and more people are working & spending money, benefitting more businesses, who keep hiring, and so on.

It's pretty basic.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I totally disagree that most of them don't understand economics, at least on the most basic level. It's easy to say that politicians suck & that they're stupid, but lazy; most understand that more jobs in 2009 means even more jobs in 2010.

For FIFTY straight fiscal years they have outspent the revenues of the government. I would say that goes against the most basic of economic AND financial principals.

I doubt even 5% of the politicians in DC have a BASIC understanding of economics.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

YES! OMFG, that would be totally awesome!. I would love for the barrcuda and the republicans to propose a 200 billion dollar moose hunters's inititative!




HaHa! Don't ever change, man! I never get tired of your drama queen act, your man-crush on Bush, your chickenhawkishness, and your tireles support of a two trillion dollar epic mistake in Iraq.

Hello Pot.... this is Kettle....

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

For FIFTY straight fiscal years they have outspent the revenues of the government. I would say that goes against the most basic of economic AND financial principals.

I doubt even 5% of the politicians in DC have a BASIC understanding of economics.

I make like 4k a year. If over 50 years, I accrued 4k in debt, I don't think I'd be in much trouble.

 

[Damocles]

I make like 4k a year. If over 50 years, I accrued 4k in debt, I don't think I'd be in much trouble.

You would be if you suddenly only made $200 per year and were trying to accrue still more debt.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

You would be if you suddenly only made $200 per year and were trying to accrue still more debt.

I don't think the revenue of the US is going to plummet from 14 trillion to 100 billion or so anytime soon.

 

[Damocles]

I don't think the revenue of the US is going to plummet from 14 trillion to 100 billion or so anytime soon.

Let's just say that you had $4,000 in debt, still made only $4,000 per year, would anybody lend you any more money? Especially when you have no capacity to pay even one dime towards the principal? Now, to make it even more realistic, say you have never spent one dime to pay back any of the debt for over 60 years...

Tell me, Watermark, which bank would do that?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I make like 4k a year. If over 50 years, I accrued 4k in debt, I don't think I'd be in much trouble.

Tell us water.... how much do we currently pay in interest to finance the continued borrowing by the idiots in DC?

Also... what will future generations say when that massive borrowing blows up in our face??? Medicare is going insolvent. So is Social Security. Rather than address the problems they face our idiots in DC want to expand upon prior stupidity. How does that make any sort of sense?

 

[Topspin]

That's topspin's theory. I'm not so naive as to think that politicians do not try to "time" things occasionally for elections, but the idea that they felt confident enough to play around with the economy as it was to try to "time" jobs is kind of insane.

The more jobs, the better it is for incumbents -whether they were jobs created this past February or next October. I don't buy that paranoia....

Yeah, I'm insane. Question liberal sheepel, have you ever look at congress's financial statements?

 

[Damocles]

I fully understand where your frustration is coming from, I just don't understanding rejecting what the actual bill says. If you can show that you have standing you can sue in the SCOTUS I guess, but in reality there isn't much we can do about it, Dix.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

By their very nature, many of the jobs they can create are temporary.

The idea is just to get people working; when people are working, they spend money. When they spend money, businesses do well, and hopefully, a more positive cycle can start whereby they can begin hiring again, and more people are working & spending money, benefitting more businesses, who keep hiring, and so on.

It's pretty basic.

What is pretty basic is your understanding of anything related to finance or money. If jobs created are temporary, they will not be permanent, that is common sense. The people who get these jobs, will not spend more money than they make, again, this is something that is common sense. So, how do you pay for a government administration of these funds through your job programs, with all the cost and inefficiencies, and still manage to stimulate the economy more than if you had just given the money to the people without any program... just a straight tax rebate? It does take money to set up the program, keep the program running, administer the funds, have the checks printed, etc... people will not spend more than they get... Seems to me, if common sense were in play, and the purpose was merely to 'get people spending again', it would be markedly better to just give a tax rebate and let ALL the money stimulate the economy, rather than being absorbed in administrative costs, and going back to the government, who isn't stimulating the economy.

The next problem is... how long can a broke country manage to spend money it doesn't have, trying to stimulate economic growth by spending $10 million to obtain $1 million in consumer spending? My guess is, not long... and you will never generate enough economic growth to make up for the cost of the program.

 

[Onceler]

"The next problem is... how long can a broke country manage to spend money it doesn't have, trying to stimulate economic growth by spending $10 million to obtain $1 million in consumer spending? My guess is, not long... and you will never generate enough economic growth to make up for the cost of the program."

The economy lost more than all of the bailouts & stimulus combined in just 4 months, between October, 2008 & February.

Net worth alone increased $2.7 trillion in the last quarter.

You're not very good at math.

 

[Damocles]

What is pretty basic is your understanding of anything related to finance or money. If jobs created are temporary, they will not be permanent, that is common sense. The people who get these jobs, will not spend more money than they make, again, this is something that is common sense. So, how do you pay for a government administration of these funds through your job programs, with all the cost and inefficiencies, and still manage to stimulate the economy more than if you had just given the money to the people without any program... just a straight tax rebate? It does take money to set up the program, keep the program running, administer the funds, have the checks printed, etc... people will not spend more than they get... Seems to me, if common sense were in play, and the purpose was merely to 'get people spending again', it would be markedly better to just give a tax rebate and let ALL the money stimulate the economy, rather than being absorbed in administrative costs, and going back to the government, who isn't stimulating the economy.

The next problem is... how long can a broke country manage to spend money it doesn't have, trying to stimulate economic growth by spending $10 million to obtain $1 million in consumer spending? My guess is, not long... and you will never generate enough economic growth to make up for the cost of the program.

Especially with temp jobs. People would not spend more than they earn if they are in a temp job and know it. In fact, they'll spend less and save what they can. Let's put them to work building the Nat Gas infrastructure for delivery for use in vehicles. That will take some time, and if the gov't owns the delivery structure they can make the oil companies pay for its usage... or we can give targeted tax breaks to get them to build them, even better.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

"The next problem is... how long can a broke country manage to spend money it doesn't have, trying to stimulate economic growth by spending $10 million to obtain $1 million in consumer spending? My guess is, not long... and you will never generate enough economic growth to make up for the cost of the program."

The economy lost more than all of the bailouts & stimulus combined in just 4 months, between October, 2008 & February.

Net worth alone increased $2.7 trillion in the last quarter.

You're not very good at math.

And your answer is another bloated inefficient government program, where we get $1 of economic benefit for every $10 spent! Brilliant!