FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
Infrastructure jobs don't actually create a lot of constructions jobs up front. They require a lot of money, so most of it goes to job creation in other areas.
stimulus worked so well, we need another one
- Thread starter Cancel 2018. 3
- Start date
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
So the stimulus woud've only been successful if it had completely and totally stopped any job losses? Where's your two trillion?
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
LMAO.... easy there... dont get your panties in a bunch. If you think the stimulus helped provide jobs in other areas, then please demonstrate that. The BULK of the jobs 'saved' were most certainly in the public sector and most certainly were primarily union jobs. To pretend otherwise is exactly what I would expect from a partisan hack such as yourself. I have already stated that the stimulus worked to an extent. But it most certainly was not done in the most efficient manner, nor is there ANY need for a second stimulus when we still have 65% of the FIRST one left to spend.
LMAO.... yeah... so we are going to continue seeing these 'jobs created' yet the unemployment rate will remain over 9%. So do explain to us how that is possible. How is it that you can 'create' jobs, yet still see the unemployment rate go up (or from this point, remain high)?
No, that is NOT what they said. You continue to twist it. They state that the stimulus bill increased employment COMPARED TO WHAT WOULD HAVE BEEN WITHOUT IT. They are not talking about a net increase. When you state it as you continue to do, it makes you look like an idiot.
For the final fucking time you moron.... As I have stated 100 fucking times before, YES.... it would have been worse without the stimulus. But to equate that to saying the 'stimulus worked' is moronic.... at best.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Agreed.
yes, I have.... and I agree... it appears at this point to be what I have been asking for all along. That said, THIS is where the first stimulus bill should have been spent. THIS is where the 65% of the first stimulus bill that has yet to be spent should go. There is no need for a second stimulus bill at this time. The idiots still have 65% of the first one left to spend.
The burden isn't on me to prove that your claim about union membership is wrong. Substantiate your claim and maybe I'll take a shot at debunking it. To get things started, I'd note that about one third of public sector are union members.
Second, the first stimulus, even if every single dollar were spend tomorrow, is too small to help bridge the output gap. That being the case, whether or not the first stimulus funds are spent is irrelevant to the question of whether more stimulus is needed.
I thought you were a bit smarter than this. Companies A, B and C lay off 100 people. Companies X, Y and Z hire 80 new people as a result of stimulus funds. You've created 80 jobs while experiencing net jobs lost of 20.
This isn't that difficult to figure out.
No one is claiming a net increase. You want to makes this about a net increase instead of about improving the employment situation because you're an ignorant hack. Basically, your expectation was for the economy to go from shedding 700,000 jobs per month to immediate positive employment growth. That's stupid.
The stimulus worked but to say that the stimulus worked is stupid. Got it. Good luck with that one.
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
we need to find a way to put a stop to this shit before it's too late....
You mean giving businesses incentives to hire new people?
Yeah - that's gotta stop...
You mean giving them incentive to fire the ones they have and hire "new" people. Temporary tax credits for hiring specifically are not incentive to increase the work force, just to play with people's lives.
In fact with all the people that have been laid off they wouldn't even have to spend money training some of the people they "hire" while they fire people who are currently working. They can even re-hire them for less money than they used to make, get a tax credit, and fire people currently working. Deflationary wages... Yaaaaay!
I'm guessing your one of those "glass half-empty" kinds of guys.
If it's stimulus related, you'll put a negative spin on it. Have any empirical evidence to back up the idea that this is what will actually happen in practice?
No. I think we need to incentivize increasing the work force (not just "hiring") and pay attention to unintended consequences. My take on you is you are the "Anything Attached to a D" is perfect kinds of guys and willing to ignore anything that might point out something wrong, even if it is logically very real, if it comes from somebody from an R POV.
Tell me, Onceler, does it make sense to do what I said? Because if I see it those "greedy" people who run corps see it too.
Bottom line is both parties are such a crock of shit right now. The republicans are stonewalling for political reasons. The Dems did it during Bush years as well.
The vast majority of these asshole politicians live the good life and say fuck you to the common people if it hurts there political chances.
Cudoes to Brown for doing what he said he would do which was to be an independent voice for the Massachusetts people.
The vast majority of these asshole politicians live the good life and say fuck you to the common people if it hurts there political chances.
Cudoes to Brown for doing what he said he would do which was to be an independent voice for the Massachusetts people.
Not sure where you came up with this half-baked bullshit, but you'll be happy to know that the jobs bill incentivizes increasing employment, not just hiring new people. Employers don't have to pay payroll tax on certain new hires and get a tax credit for retaining employees. The purpose of having both provisions in there is to avoid the gaming that you are concerned about.
I'm not going to argue that it's not a sensible measure - it is. First of all, are you sure that it's not part of the proposal? I really don't know. Second, I just don't think that would be a widespread result.
And stop with the "anything attached to a D" BS. I was as outspoken as anyone in favor of Bush's bailouts, and had Bush proposed the same kind of stimulus as Obama before leaving office, I would have supported that to. I understand that Keynesian logic, and agree with it for the most part. I'm also one who thought the 1st stimulus could have been much larger, and I am not at all opposed to a 2nd one, especially one focused more on breaks for small businesses.
Since the inception of the 1st stimulus, you have been fairly knee-jerk in your oppostion & criticism of it. The fact is, jobs have been created, and it has stemmed the bleeding. To me, if it is even part of laying a foundation for a turnaround, it is cheap as can be in the long run....
Excellent, the first bill of this sort I saw proposed didn't do this, it was truly bad legislation.
Yeah, but you reject anything that comes from me out of hand without regard to any form of logic based solely on the fact that we disagree often.
We don't disagree all the time, and I'm not inclined to be disagreeable just to be disagreeable.
I just think you have been fairly unrelenting on the stimulus, and have shown excessive reluctance to give credit where it is due. This is largely because you opposed the measure, and, while I'm sure you don't want it to "fail," I doubt you want to give up on the idea that you were correct in opposing it, either.
The stimulus is based on a particular economic theory, which you don't agree with, but it's not a fringe idea. As time goes on, I think criticism of the stimulus will ring more & more hollow; naturally, if the turnaround that we're starting to see doesn't hold, I'm wrong on that, but I don't think that will be the case.
I have been unrelenting on the FORM of stimulus.
I wasn't "knee-jerk" I opposed the first stimulus for reasons I directly spoke about, you just have your firm idea of what I am and don't even bother reading what I post most of the time, call it "knee-jerk" and then pretend you've made some point. Too often we have all fallen for the "Partisan" label. Yeah, we are partisan, bit it doesn't make anybody "evil", it just makes some people (I submit you specifically) promptly to reject anything said by somebody on the other side of their spectrum.
Most of your posts to me are ones that say some form of "what a partisan you are" without any form of presentation as to what you think was wrong about what I said.
The fact is, had the original stimulus done what I suggested (give tax credits for keeping people on the payroll, and tax breaks for new hires as you suggest this new one does) they would have actually created jobs rather than "saved" some and had a net negative. Instead they passed legislation that was aimed at what I call "timely stimulus" that comes just in time for elections. I'm pretty sure you'll remember me calling it the "re-elect the Democrats Fund"...
I would support legislation that gives tax breaks to incentivize hiring and keeping people on payrolls. It's what I've said from the beginning we should do.
I'd like to point out that it was you on this thread implying that I would support anything with a "D" next to it regarding this topic.
I didn't see your reply on this thread and knee-jerk in response. I was genuinely struck by the negative spin on tax incentives for small businesses - a sound measure; and not just by that, but by the fact that it was your first and only reaction.
And it has been this way since the passage of the stimulus. Your view of it is generally glass half-empty, which is why I responded as I did. I supported the stimulus wholeheartedly, and still do, but if you had told me in February that there would be some misfires, wasted cash, poor allocations, etc., I would not have argued it. I don't think it would have been possible to put together the perfect measure, given the time sensitivity of the measure.
To me, though, the measure has served its purpose, at least so far, as have the bailouts. They were very inexpensive measures overall, compared to the alternatives, and certainly compared to the fallout we would have experienced with no action.
Again, it isn't "negative spin" it is what I read when it was first proposed. It did not have the incentive to keep people on the payroll and had the problems I described and therefore would reject that law. If they have fixed it as has been suggested, then the Ds are seeing the wisdom in what I proposed originally. I like that. Republicans should support legislation that is doing what they said should be done, and they should shout it from the rooftops.