APP - Obama needs to shout his achievements out loud

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

For example, let's say a guy gets laid off. He can sit at home and do nothing while collecting unemployment or he can start a project. Maybe building a deck and doing some landscaping or finishing the basement. Normally, he wouldn't have the time/energy to do that when working at a full time job.

Why wouldn't the guy be doing something like, oh I don't know, LOOKING FOR A JOB? Seems like that might be the LOGICAL thing for the guy to do, but you claim it is a time for home improvement projects?

So, what is the best use of his time? Sit at home and lament his position or buy some building materials and do a project?

The best use of his time would be to LOOK FOR A JOB! The NEXT best use, would be to prepare a resume, or shave and get a hair cut maybe... anything that would be preparation for finding a JOB! The most illogical and absurd use of his time, would be to start a home improvement project he simply can't afford!

He doesn't have to pay cash for his materials. He can spread the payments out knowing that when he returns to work in six months or a year he'll have the funds to pay the entire loan.

How is he going to return to work if he is not looking for work? If he is busy renovating his home, he isn't going to have the time and energy to look for a JOB! And why would he need to? I mean, you are perfectly willing to fund his home improvement projects, give him unending weeks of unemployment, and take care of his every need!

He doesn't have to pay cash for the materials.... WE PAY FOR IT! This is coming from OUR tax dollars! WE will be the ones on the hook for a "loan" made to a man who doesn't have a JOB! That's just fucking BRILLIANT!

Meanwhile, he has increased the value of his home. He has kept busy which is good for morale and when he does return to work he can enjoy what he built during the time he was out of work.

This is supposing the magic job fairy visits him while he's putting on his cedar shake roof, and drops a JOB in his lap... it further supposes that the magic finance fairy has kept all of his bills paid during his layoff, and he isn't in debt up to his eyeballs when he goes back to work. But we can all "feel good" about helping his morale, right???

You are about the stupidest person on this site... I don't even think Onzies comes close to this level of stupid! It's beyond pathetic, it's downright sad! To think, you actually represent a considerable chunk of the American electorate... no fucking wonder we are in the mess we're in!

 

[Good Luck]

The stimulus is being used, in some cases, to improve infrastructure and renovate/insulate old government buildings. When there is high unemployment the government has a larger pool from which to choose employees plus it means less unemployment is being paid out. The best time for governments to spend (hire employees, buy materials, etc) is when the economy is slow.

The purpose of the stimulus is to help now, not necessarily to create jobs for the future. The economy will take care of that as it always has.

For example, let's say a guy gets laid off. He can sit at home and do nothing while collecting unemployment or he can start a project. Maybe building a deck and doing some landscaping or finishing the basement. Normally, he wouldn't have the time/energy to do that when working at a full time job.

So, what is the best use of his time? Sit at home and lament his position or buy some building materials and do a project? He doesn't have to pay cash for his materials. He can spread the payments out knowing that when he returns to work in six months or a year he'll have the funds to pay the entire loan. Meanwhile, he has increased the value of his home. He has kept busy which is good for morale and when he does return to work he can enjoy what he built during the time he was out of work.

Right. A person out of work is going to haul out the credit cards and start doing home improvement to keep busy. (Keep their minds off of how fucked the federal government is under current leadership.) A person with a mortgage and other expenses is supposed to ADD to his debt burden at a time his income is cut in half, or worse. The what happens if it takes them 18 months to get a new job at 3/4 the pay of his previous one?

And in case you have not noticed, the stimulus has NOT resulted in greater available credit, nor have the bank bailouts. Credit is still tight and getting tighter. To top off the situation, revolving credit companies pulled back on extending credit as much as possible, AND raised their base interest charges even as the fed dropped prime rates to near zerro, before the Dem's "credit fairness" bill kicked in. Not exactly an economic environment that encourages displaced workers to use their time spending money on credit.

So much for THAT part of the plan.

Are you COMPLETELY ignorant of the fact that over extended private credit is what LED to the current crisis in the first place? And your plan is to have people WITHOUT MEANS to continue to borrow money in order to "stimulate" the economy. What you describe is the basis for another major crisis of private over extended credit in order to bring us out of a crisis generated by private overextended credit. Talk about your definition of insanity.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

What you describe is the basis for another major crisis of private over extended credit in order to bring us out of a crisis generated by private overextended credit. Talk about your definition of insanity.

You have to wonder how these people make it through life without getting hit by a bus or something... that must be where they coined the phrase "dumb luck."

 

[Good Luck]

I read it, and I was actually quite encouraged by it. It doesn't fill me with dread that in 2019, we might have a growth rate of 3.6% instead of 3.8%. I'll take a few million jobs now for that.

So, you're now claiming that the entire premise for CBO's statement of greater long term harm comes from that one statistic. Must be since it is the only one you're willing to discuss. The analysts at CBO must be really stupid as to think a couple tenths lower in the future is not worth a few full points now. I guess they're completely full of shit. (except when they agree with you, of course, then they are gods of prognostication.)

Are you really that ignorant, or are you simply that big a liar?

 

[apple0154]

Why wouldn't the guy be doing something like, oh I don't know, LOOKING FOR A JOB? Seems like that might be the LOGICAL thing for the guy to do, but you claim it is a time for home improvement projects?

Do you have a learning disability?

Obviously, the guy would be looking for a job. You wrote,

The most illogical and absurd use of his time, would be to start a home improvement project he simply can't afford!

The majority of any improvement project is the labor. The value of his labor would add to the compensation he was receiving while unemployed. In other words his income would be less but the value of his home would increase due to the improvement so he would be making money/adding to his net worth in the long run.

Further, the guy/job was an analogy meaning not everything is equal. The government has the money because the citizens have the money. Why do you think credit card companies and other places that loan money ask for the total household income? While others living in your home may not be responsible for your CC debt the total household income is a good indicator of your ability to repay.

One of the things the value/assets of a country is based on is what the population has which is why when I hear people say the government can not afford something it sounds so silly. The government can afford many things because it gets it's money from the citizens and if the citizens can afford it then the government can afford it.

So, if spending money now will ultimately be beneficial then the argument the government can not afford it doesn't hold water. An example is the infrastructure. New water and sewer lines in a community raises the value of an individual's home so everyone benefits. The homeowner, the previously unemployed individual and the government by looking after the people who elected it.

Why do you have such a difficult time extrapolating the benefits of family to the community as a whole? Let's say you owned a business and had an adult son/daughter who lost their job. Wouldn't you try to find something they could do while seeking another job? Be it helping in the office or painting the outside of the building you could pay them less than a contractor while supplementing their income.

Why does everything have to be a competition? Why do you have the attitude, "To hell with the other guy?" What happened in your life to make you so bitter? Do you ever find peace?

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Why wouldn't the guy be doing something like, oh I don't know, LOOKING FOR A JOB? Seems like that might be the LOGICAL thing for the guy to do, but you claim it is a time for home improvement projects?



The best use of his time would be to LOOK FOR A JOB! The NEXT best use, would be to prepare a resume, or shave and get a hair cut maybe... anything that would be preparation for finding a JOB! The most illogical and absurd use of his time, would be to start a home improvement project he simply can't afford!



How is he going to return to work if he is not looking for work? If he is busy renovating his home, he isn't going to have the time and energy to look for a JOB! And why would he need to? I mean, you are perfectly willing to fund his home improvement projects, give him unending weeks of unemployment, and take care of his every need!

He doesn't have to pay cash for the materials.... WE PAY FOR IT! This is coming from OUR tax dollars! WE will be the ones on the hook for a "loan" made to a man who doesn't have a JOB! That's just fucking BRILLIANT!



This is supposing the magic job fairy visits him while he's putting on his cedar shake roof, and drops a JOB in his lap... it further supposes that the magic finance fairy has kept all of his bills paid during his layoff, and he isn't in debt up to his eyeballs when he goes back to work. But we can all "feel good" about helping his morale, right???

You are about the stupidest person on this site... I don't even think Onzies comes close to this level of stupid! It's beyond pathetic, it's downright sad! To think, you actually represent a considerable chunk of the American electorate... no fucking wonder we are in the mess we're in!

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Do you have a learning disability?

Obviously, the guy would be looking for a job. You wrote,

How will the guy be looking for a job while he is working on his house?

The majority of any improvement project is the labor. The value of his labor would add to the compensation he was receiving while unemployed. In other words his income would be less but the value of his home would increase due to the improvement so he would be making money/adding to his net worth in the long run.

Oh, I don't doubt that he would add to his net worth if WE pay for his home improvements!

Further, the guy/job was an analogy meaning not everything is equal. The government has the money because the citizens have the money.

Who has the money to pay for this stupid shit? I DON'T! Our government is currently $12 trillion in the RED, they are borrowing money from China as fast as they can, just to make the interest payments on the debt they owe! You are out of you mind if you think we have money to blow on stupid shit like this! It's a good example of how absolutely out of touch with reality you are!

Why do you think credit card companies and other places that loan money ask for the total household income? While others living in your home may not be responsible for your CC debt the total household income is a good indicator of your ability to repay.

Total income for a guy with no job is $0.00! Most banks and financial institutions would say that disqualifies you for ANY loan!

One of the things the value/assets of a country is based on is what the population has which is why when I hear people say the government can not afford something it sounds so silly. The government can afford many things because it gets it's money from the citizens and if the citizens can afford it then the government can afford it.

*sigh* You need to grow up and understand, the government is not your Rich Uncle, who has all the money in the universe at their disposal, and available for whatever WHIM you come up with next! I am sorry, but we simply aren't Paris Hilton! The problem is, the citizens CAN'T afford it! We've already spent more than the citizens will be able to ever repay, or their kids, or their grandkids! And you just keep piling on stupid things to spend MORE on! It's as if you simply don't believe there is a bottom to the pile of money in Washington! It's there because the citizens have plenty, and it's up to your 'do-good' ass to determine how to blow it on stupid meaningless shit!

So, if spending money now will ultimately be beneficial then the argument the government can not afford it doesn't hold water.

Well, it DOES hold water, because the FACT is, we are $12 trillion in debt and RISING! We are BROKE! Do you NOT understand that FACT? We DON'T have all this endless supply of wealth and money to spend on superfluous bullshit!

An example is the infrastructure. New water and sewer lines in a community raises the value of an individual's home so everyone benefits. The homeowner, the previously unemployed individual and the government by looking after the people who elected it.

If a community elects to spend local funds on water systems and such, that should be up to the community, and they should collectively decide it, NOT the US Government! How in the fuck does increasing another individual's home value help ME? Where do you get that "everyone benefits?" MY tax dollars go to pay for someones home improvement, if there is any benefit, it sure isn't going to be realized by ME!

Why do you have such a difficult time extrapolating the benefits of family to the community as a whole? Let's say you owned a business and had an adult son/daughter who lost their job. Wouldn't you try to find something they could do while seeking another job? Be it helping in the office or painting the outside of the building you could pay them less than a contractor while supplementing their income.

Perhaps I would, if my business could afford it. I would be an idiot to go borrowing money to pay for unnecessary improvement projects I couldn't afford, just so my son/daughter had something to do instead of looking for a job! Why is it so hard for you to extrapolate that it's not MY family's responsibility and first priority to take care of YOUR family?

Why does everything have to be a competition? Why do you have the attitude, "To hell with the other guy?" What happened in your life to make you so bitter? Do you ever find peace?

Where have I said "to hell with the other guy?" Is that based on the fact that I don't think it should be my responsibility to provide for the other guy? I don't mind helping someone who is down, I have no problem with using a little of my tax money to pay for the unemployed guy to get retrained in something, or anything to help him in his search for employment. I don't even mind using some of my tax money to keep a roof over his head and food on the table for a few months, while he looks for work. I have to draw the line when it comes to using MY money to pay for his home renovation projects! That's just asking a little too much, I think! And for you to try and turn that back around on me, as if I am some greedy SOB who doesn't "care" enough, is insulting and offensive.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

What happened in your life to make you so bitter? Do you ever find peace?

What happened in your life that made you feel so empowered to speak for me and spend my money? How much of MY money will it take to satisfy your conscience that you've done all you can to help others? Will you ever be satisfied? If everyone who pays taxes just donated ALL their money to the government, would it satisfy you enough? OR would you demand that we work harder, maybe extend the work week another day, so we can make more money to give to whomever you feel deserves it more than me?

 

[apple0154]

How will the guy be looking for a job while he is working on his house?

He isn't going to be looking for a job 8 hours a day, every day. He may start out that way but after a while there are limited places to look. He is not going to knock on the same company door every day.

Oh, I don't doubt that he would add to his net worth if WE pay for his home improvements!

No one is being asked to pay for his home improvement. He is buying the material and doing the job himself.

Who has the money to pay for this stupid shit? I DON'T! Our government is currently $12 trillion in the RED, they are borrowing money from China as fast as they can, just to make the interest payments on the debt they owe! You are out of you mind if you think we have money to blow on stupid shit like this! It's a good example of how absolutely out of touch with reality you are!

So what do you suggest? We just waste the manpower of millions of citizens? Tell them to stay home and rest instead of taking advantage of the available labor?

*sigh* You need to grow up and understand, the government is not your Rich Uncle, who has all the money in the universe at their disposal, and available for whatever WHIM you come up with next! I am sorry, but we simply aren't Paris Hilton! The problem is, the citizens CAN'T afford it! We've already spent more than the citizens will be able to ever repay, or their kids, or their grandkids! And you just keep piling on stupid things to spend MORE on! It's as if you simply don't believe there is a bottom to the pile of money in Washington! It's there because the citizens have plenty, and it's up to your 'do-good' ass to determine how to blow it on stupid meaningless shit!

Let's cut to the chase. (I like that expression. The first time I "heard" it was on a dating site used as a double entendre. )

So what, in your mind, is the "worst case scenario"? Your grandchildren will go hungry because they owe so much money? The Chinese will foreclose on the White House? What would justify not taking advantage of the millions of available manpower?

Well, it DOES hold water, because the FACT is, we are $12 trillion in debt and RISING! We are BROKE! Do you NOT understand that FACT? We DON'T have all this endless supply of wealth and money to spend on superfluous bullshit!

Again, what is the worst case scenario? We'll all be driving a Caramba? http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/ay-chinese-caramba-cheap-cars-invade-mexico/

Perhaps I would, if my business could afford it. I would be an idiot to go borrowing money to pay for unnecessary improvement projects I couldn't afford, just so my son/daughter had something to do instead of looking for a job! Why is it so hard for you to extrapolate that it's not MY family's responsibility and first priority to take care of YOUR family?

I never said "unnecessary" projects. If your adult son or daughter was unemployed and you could use their labor to help you and them why would you not do it?

Where have I said "to hell with the other guy?" Is that based on the fact that I don't think it should be my responsibility to provide for the other guy? I don't mind helping someone who is down, I have no problem with using a little of my tax money to pay for the unemployed guy to get retrained in something, or anything to help him in his search for employment. I don't even mind using some of my tax money to keep a roof over his head and food on the table for a few months, while he looks for work. I have to draw the line when it comes to using MY money to pay for his home renovation projects! That's just asking a little too much, I think! And for you to try and turn that back around on me, as if I am some greedy SOB who doesn't "care" enough, is insulting and offensive.

Let's be clear here. You would not be paying for his renovation.

The only reason you feel insulted and offended is because you don't understand. Let me take another try at explaining it.

Your country is an extension of your family. If you had an adult son or daughter who was unemployed and living with you wouldn't you want them to help around the house? Wouldn't you be wise to buy building materials and have them fix up the basement? The same principal applies to an unemployed neighbor. Would you not want him to do something around the community rather than just pay him benefits to stay home?

Our economy, our way of life is intertwined. It's the same thing with medical care. Most people agree we'll have to do a bit of belt tightening over the coming years to pay back our loans. What belt does the guy who can't afford medical insurance right now tighten?

It's time to look at the big picture and work towards a common goal. The neighbor's foreclosed house falls into disrepair and that affects the value of our home. How much more evident can it be that we all have to work together?

 

[apple0154]

What happened in your life that made you feel so empowered to speak for me and spend my money? How much of MY money will it take to satisfy your conscience that you've done all you can to help others? Will you ever be satisfied? If everyone who pays taxes just donated ALL their money to the government, would it satisfy you enough? OR would you demand that we work harder, maybe extend the work week another day, so we can make more money to give to whomever you feel deserves it more than me?

Contrary to your belief it's not all about you. Everyone is contributing. That's why we have taxes. That's why the people with less income pay less income tax. That's why people have deductions for dependents.

Try to expand your mind to understand we are all in this together. When it is dinner time do you fill your plate first and then let other family members help themselves? If not, why not? What about Dixie? Why doesn't Dixie come first at the dinner table?

Can you take that thought and expand on it. Try. You just may like it.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

So, you're now claiming that the entire premise for CBO's statement of greater long term harm comes from that one statistic. Must be since it is the only one you're willing to discuss. The analysts at CBO must be really stupid as to think a couple tenths lower in the future is not worth a few full points now. I guess they're completely full of shit. (except when they agree with you, of course, then they are gods of prognostication.)

Are you really that ignorant, or are you simply that big a liar?

he is both ignorant and dishonest. i have tried to get him and nigel to admit the stupidity and dishonesty of claiming that the CBO said it was negative based solely on that small factor, but they continue to run away, only to come back and make the point again.

'good luck' getting them to be honest this

 

[Onceler]

he is both ignorant and dishonest. i have tried to get him and nigel to admit the stupidity and dishonesty of claiming that the CBO said it was negative based solely on that small factor, but they continue to run away, only to come back and make the point again.

'good luck' getting them to be honest this

When have I "run away?"

Talk about dishonesty.

Why not own up to the fact that the verbiage you posted again & again & again was NOT what the CBO said, as you claimed, but was what the Times said they said, which has been roundly criticized by media watch organizations?

The CBO NEVER said, "we'd be better off if Obama had done nothing." They NEVER said, "the overall effect in the long-run will be negative."

You are hopelessly dishonest. Good Luck tried to throw you a life raft, but you've still been badly humiliated on this thread. Frankly, I'm surprised you had the shamelessness to post here again.

 

[Onceler]

and since you want to cite CBO, let's see what CBO said about its lasting impact:

President Obama's economic recovery package will actually hurt the economy more in the long run than if he were to do nothing, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said Wednesday.
....

See this quote?

It's a lie. The CBO did not say that, or imply it.\

If they did - show me the exact verbiage.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

if obama had not enacted the stimulus, the economy would not suffer in the long run, thus it would be better off....any 5th grader realizes this....perhaps you should read the report again

and good luck called you a liar moron

 

[Good Luck]

See this quote?

It's a lie. The CBO did not say that, or imply it.\

If they did - show me the exact verbiage.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/04/cbo-obama-stimulus-harmful-over-long-haul/

CBO, the official scorekeepers for legislation, said the House and Senate bills will help in the short term but result in so much government debt that within a few years they would crowd out private investment, actually leading to a lower Gross Domestic Product over the next 10 years than if the government had done nothing.

There is the phrase you keep ignoring. Lower GDP over the next ten years... That does NOT say "lower GDP per year over the next 10 years" So, over the next 10 years, the stimulus is likely to result in a lower GDP over all, INCLUDING any short term gains. So any short term growth will be eaten up and we'll end up worse off in the long run, with associated higher over-all unemployment, with associated higher expenses trying to support the higher unemployment, adding more to the already ballooned-beyond-all-comprehension national debt, etc. etc. etc.

That's what government (and it does not matter the flavor) and their idiot lemming servants cannot seem to grasp. Quick throw-some-more-money-at-it fixes invariably lead to more long term problems. But, since the focus of government pukes is always the next election cycle, that is how far out they give a shit about the crap they pull on us.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

When have I "run away?"

Talk about dishonesty.

Why not own up to the fact that the verbiage you posted again & again & again was NOT what the CBO said, as you claimed, but was what the Times said they said, which has been roundly criticized by media watch organizations?

The CBO NEVER said, "we'd be better off if Obama had done nothing." They NEVER said, "the overall effect in the long-run will be negative."

You are hopelessly dishonest. Good Luck tried to throw you a life raft, but you've still been badly humiliated on this thread. Frankly, I'm surprised you had the shamelessness to post here again.

lol....he just threw you an anchor, why can't you be honest just once onceler

 

[Onceler]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/04/cbo-obama-stimulus-harmful-over-long-haul/



There is the phrase you keep ignoring. Lower GDP over the next ten years... That does NOT say "lower GDP per year over the next 10 years" So, over the next 10 years, the stimulus is likely to result in a lower GDP over all, INCLUDING any short term gains. So any short term growth will be eaten up and we'll end up worse off in the long run, with associated higher over-all unemployment, with associated higher expenses trying to support the higher unemployment, adding more to the already ballooned-beyond-all-comprehension national debt, etc. etc. etc.

That's what government (and it does not matter the flavor) and their idiot lemming servants cannot seem to grasp. Quick throw-some-more-money-at-it fixes invariably lead to more long term problems. But, since the focus of government pukes is always the next election cycle, that is how far out they give a shit about the crap they pull on us.

Um, no, Good Luck. You're going w/ the Washington Times article, as well.

Now, why not look up the actual letter from the CBO, and see if you think the Times interprets it correctly.

What a couple of fools.

 

[Onceler]

if obama had not enacted the stimulus, the economy would not suffer in the long run, thus it would be better off....any 5th grader realizes this....perhaps you should read the report again

and good luck called you a liar moron

Um, no - it said that it would knock a few tenths of a percent off of GROWTH in 10 years time.

You're still not really reading the CBO letter, or reading it correctly.

As I said - I'm embarassed for you. But you seem to be a glutton for punishment on this issue.

One more time, for the slow righties - the CBO never made a determination that it is worse to trade stronger growth now for a miniscule loss of growth 10 years from now. In fact, anyone with any intelligence at all realizes that exactly the opposite is true; it's a no brainer to promote higher growth now, in a recession, and trade it for a loss of a couple tenths of a percent in growth in 2019.

 

[Onceler]

Here's my request of the gdp-challenged righties: link the CBO letter, and stop linking the erroneous Times article (which, again, media watchdog groups have criticized as flat-out bad reporting).

Once you link the CBO letter, cut & paste the exact verbiage - in context - which shows that the CBO states conclusively that the stimulus will be more MORE detrimental in the long run, and that America & the economy would have been better off had Obama done nothing.

"Good luck," as they say...

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Here's my request of the gdp-challenged righties: link the CBO letter, and stop linking the erroneous Times article (which, again, media watchdog groups have criticized as flat-out bad reporting).

Once you link the CBO letter, cut & paste the exact verbiage - in context - which shows that the CBO states conclusively that the stimulus will be more MORE detrimental in the long run, and that America & the economy would have been better off had Obama done nothing.

"Good luck," as they say...

I got a better idea, let's do nothing and continue to watch the high unemployment through the Summer of 2010, and the anemic growth, and the declining dollar, while this DEMOCRAT congress continues to spend us into oblivion and raise taxes! That's what I want to see, because by November, I seriously doubt more than 15% of the country will want to vote for your party, and we can say goodbye to your goofy asses forever.

 

[Onceler]

I got a better idea, let's do nothing and continue to watch the high unemployment through the Summer of 2010, and the anemic growth, and the declining dollar, while this DEMOCRAT congress continues to spend us into oblivion and raise taxes! That's what I want to see, because by November, I seriously doubt more than 15% of the country will want to vote for your party, and we can say goodbye to your goofy asses forever.

But that would be bad news for you, wouldn't it?

Haven't you argued that Republicans "work better in the minority?"

Why would you want them in a position where they work more poorly?