Page 28 of 63 FirstFirst ... 18262728293038 ... LastLast
Results 271 to 280 of 628

Thread: LA Times: Obama stimulus spending: $246,436 per new job

  1. #271
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,584

    Re: LA Times: Obama stimulus spending: $246,436 per new job

    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post
    Why would they be worried about government spending?
    Because bankers, like everyone else with some common sense, know that the money that the government spends will have to be paid back by their customers. They're not going to make loans to businesses if theirs a better than average chance that the loan want be paid back. A tax hike will cause that better than average chance to exist. You think banks in Louisiana are making loans on oilfield equipment right now? uh, no!



    Which bills?
    Cap-n-tax, Obamacare, Pork I and II, Omnibus. The new taxes that will be born out of these bills will greatly effect a businesses bottom line, along with their ability to generate enough revenue to repay a loan, plus still be able to operate.



    Well, that may be a factor, yes, but the Fed is hardly worried about inflation right at this moment. Deflation is more like it. The Fed has pushed interest rates really really low and lowered the discount rate as well to make it easier for banks to loan out money.

    Haven't we already learned our lesson from that? I thought we had, but maybe not.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  2. #272
    Sage
    misterman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    02-09-12 @ 08:41 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,913

    Re: LA Times: Obama stimulus spending: $246,436 per new job

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    Because bankers, like everyone else with some common sense, know that the money that the government spends will have to be paid back by their customers. They're not going to make loans to businesses if theirs a better than average chance that the loan want be paid back. A tax hike will cause that better than average chance to exist. You think banks in Louisiana are making loans on oilfield equipment right now? uh, no!
    So you think an administration that is doing record deficit spending to save the economy is going to be concerned about the deficit so much in a year or two that they will impose massive tax hikes before we've recovered and risk undoing this expensive recovery? And you think the banks really think that? Right.

    Cap-n-tax, Obamacare, Pork I and II, Omnibus. The new taxes that will be born out of these bills will greatly effect a businesses bottom line, along with their ability to generate enough revenue to repay a loan, plus still be able to operate.
    Cap and trade will have some costs, yes. Obamacare will end up saving the government a slight amount of money, depending on which version passes. "Pork" and omnibus I presume means appropriations bills, which don't impose any taxes, but rather spending, which is the good thing right now, remember? If you don't, the banks will.

  3. #273
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,584

    Re: LA Times: Obama stimulus spending: $246,436 per new job

    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post
    So you think an administration that is doing record deficit spending to save the economy is going to be concerned about the deficit so much in a year or two that they will impose massive tax hikes before we've recovered and risk undoing this expensive recovery? And you think the banks really think that? Right.
    I know the banks are thinking about that. We're not talking about 90 single payment loans here. We're talking 24, 48, 60+ months loans. Do you seriously think that banks aren't thinking about new taxes that will be imposed 5 years from now?



    Cap and trade will have some costs, yes.
    No one knows what CnT is going to cost private businesses and no one is going to d anything, till CnT goes away, or we can get a solid fix on how much will come out of our pockets.

    Obamacare will end up saving the government a slight amount of money, depending on which version passes.
    Yeah, right!! A government program that saves money.... Besides, business tides don't ebb and flow on whether, or not the government saves money on some BS program.

    "Pork" and omnibus I presume means appropriations bills, which don't impose any taxes, but rather spending, which is the good thing right now, remember? If you don't, the banks will.
    They have to be paid for, sooner, or later. Hence, the government can't create wealth.

    Trust me, the banks don't give a rat's ass how much money the government is pissing away on marsh mice, deer underpasses, turtle tunnels and political payoffs to Hillaries pards.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  4. #274
    Sage
    misterman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    02-09-12 @ 08:41 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,913

    Re: LA Times: Obama stimulus spending: $246,436 per new job

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    I know the banks are thinking about that. We're not talking about 90 single payment loans here. We're talking 24, 48, 60+ months loans. Do you seriously think that banks aren't thinking about new taxes that will be imposed 5 years from now?
    How do you know?

    No one knows what CnT is going to cost private businesses and no one is going to d anything, till CnT goes away, or we can get a solid fix on how much will come out of our pockets.
    Yeah, right!! A government program that saves money....
    The CBO says so.

    See, this is typical of the debate here - just repeating as gospel simple little cynical statements they hear on the bus. If you disagree with the CBO, present some evidence.

    They have to be paid for, sooner, or later. Hence, the government can't create wealth.
    There's another one.

    Trust me,


    the banks don't give a rat's ass how much money the government is pissing away on marsh mice, deer underpasses, turtle tunnels and political payoffs to Hillaries pards.
    So they don't care that all those businesses getting the stimulus contracts are getting lots of new orders and hiring people and such? Hmmm.

  5. #275
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,584

    Re: LA Times: Obama stimulus spending: $246,436 per new job

    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post
    How do you know?
    I own a business. I'm at the bank every week. I talk to the honchos and that's what they're telling me, besides, I possess an above average level of common sense.





    The CBO says so.

    See, this is typical of the debate here - just repeating as gospel simple little cynical statements they hear on the bus. If you disagree with the CBO, present some evidence.
    Let's see where the CBO says so.


    [/quote]So they don't care that all those businesses getting the stimulus contracts are getting lots of new orders and hiring people and such? Hmmm.[/QUOTE]


    Sure they would care, if it were actually happening. There just aren't enough businesses prospering from the pork pack to turn the economy around. Sorry!!!! Not here in the real world, anyway.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  6. #276
    Sage
    misterman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    02-09-12 @ 08:41 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,913

    Re: LA Times: Obama stimulus spending: $246,436 per new job

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    I own a business. I'm at the bank every week. I talk to the honchos and that's what they're telling me,
    Interesting. I wonder if their thoughts are reflected by people who follow these things more closely, on the national level.

    besides, I possess an above average level of common sense.
    Common sense is often wrong.

    Let's see where the CBO says so.
    Whoa, first actual link of the thread, I believe.

    "According to CBO and JCT’s assessment, enacting the Chairman’s mark, as amended, would result in a net reduction in federal budget deficits of $81 billion over the 2010–2019 period."

    Director’s Blog Blog Archive Preliminary Analysis of the Senate Finance Committee Chairman?s Mark As Amended

    This is for the Senate bill. The House bills probably cost more.

    [/quote]So they don't care that all those businesses getting the stimulus contracts are getting lots of new orders and hiring people and such? Hmmm.[/QUOTE]

    Sure they would care, if it were actually happening. There just aren't enough businesses prospering from the pork pack to turn the economy around. Sorry!!!! Not here in the real world, anyway.
    So now you're saying the stimulus is too small?

  7. #277
    User
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    01-03-10 @ 06:41 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    88

    Re: LA Times: Obama stimulus spending: $246,436 per new job

    Ooophh. What a discussion. Essentially we have the Keynisian school represented by Misterman and Goldenboy insisting that any spending is good - when the private sector does not then the government must pick up the slack. The Austrian school then chimes back that the government picking up the slack causes greater government debt which must come out of the economy in the form of taxes sooner or later and this will decrease economic growth in the future. The Keynisians retort that later is better than now. The Austrians reply that the government does not slow down its programs when the economy gets better - it just keeps increasing them - so the debt is still out there . . . etc. etc. etc.

    A few facts then to break the deadlock. The lead article stated that the stimulus bill is averaging over $240,000 per job created. The obvious retort is that it does not consider the number of jobs saved by the bill. Even if only one job was saved, the average would go down. I don't think anyone can really argue that at least one job has been saved by the stimulus bill - after all think of all those investment bankers at AIG! So the headline is obvious hyperbole and sensationalism. Kind of a duh!

    So now the argument boils down to whether government stimulus is worse than private investment for the economy in a recession. This creates the above argument between the Keynesians and Austrians. I tend towards the Austrian school myself, believing that the private sector is a much better place for money to be than the government sector for economic growth. Economic growth is a great equalizer and helps everyone in our society improve - the infamous 'rising tide raises all the boats'. As a mention to the retort that the Austrian school of economics has been proven wrong and discredited, I would like to point out that several of the Nobel Economics Prizes since 2000 have gone to economists of the Austrian school including a few of the more prominent thinkers in the school. So I doubt that the Austrian school is 'dead, discredited, and disgraced'. But the argument continues as evidenced in this thread.

    But, like many opposing schools of thought, the reality is probably a mixture of the two schools. Whichever school you do believe in, however, the constant spending by the government will have to end at some time or another. One of the primary reasons for government to spend 'stimulus' money during economic downturns according to Keynes is that the government will be able to purchase more infrastructure during a downturn for less money. This has been neatly defeated by the 'prevailing union wages' law (I can't recall the name off the top of my head) that forces the government to pay top dollar whether during a downturn or not. There goes one of Keynes' primary arguments.

    When the downturn is done, we will have to start figuring out how to pay down the debt. And the debt over just the past 11 months has been HUGE. All of that debt is going to have to come out of our economy at some point, and that will limit our economic growth and that will affect ALL members of our society. So even our Keynisians must agree that some of our stimulus spending has been unwise and overly expensive. I fell that the amount of money thrown in a shotgun effect has been very wasteful. If all of the money had gone strictly into infrastructure (construction of roads, hospitals, schools, etc.) that would have been one thing, but very little of it has been.

  8. #278
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,584

    Re: LA Times: Obama stimulus spending: $246,436 per new job

    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post
    Interesting. I wonder if their thoughts are reflected by people who follow these things more closely, on the national level.
    No doubt that's the case. Why do you think lending is down like it is?



    Common sense is often wrong.
    It's very rare for common sense to be wrong...if ever.



    Whoa, first actual link of the thread, I believe.

    "According to CBO and JCT’s assessment, enacting the Chairman’s mark, as amended, would result in a net reduction in federal budget deficits of $81 billion over the 2010–2019 period."

    Director’s Blog Blog Archive Preliminary Analysis of the Senate Finance Committee Chairman?s Mark As Amended

    This is for the Senate bill. The House bills probably cost more.[/quote]

    This has BS written all over.

    According to CBO and JCT’s assessment, enacting the Chairman’s mark, as amended, would result in a net reduction in federal budget deficits of $81 billion over the 2010–2019 period. The estimate includes a projected net cost of $518 billion over 10 years for the proposed expansions in insurance coverage. That net cost itself reflects a gross total of $829 billion in credits and subsidies provided through the exchanges, increased net outlays for Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and tax credits for small employers; those costs are partly offset by $201 billion in revenues from the excise tax on high-premium insurance plans and $110 billion in net savings from other sources. The net cost of the coverage expansions would be more than offset by the combination of other spending changes that CBO estimates would save $404 billion over the 10 years and other provisions that JCT and CBO estimate would increase federal revenues by $196 billion over the same period. In subsequent years, the collective effect of those provisions would probably be continued reductions in federal budget deficits. Those estimates are all subject to substantial uncertainty.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  9. #279
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Seen
    01-21-10 @ 02:59 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    744

    Re: LA Times: Obama stimulus spending: $246,436 per new job

    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post
    Why would they be worried about government spending?
    Because government spending results in debt, debt results in interest rates, interest rates tend to grow and accumulate, have you ever had a credit card? They also worry about the free money they have been given recently, and how high the interest rate will be in the future, so as I said, they are keeping their powder dry, only investing in the sure thing. Finally, if the government continues to spend like they are today, there will be no more bailouts for them, no more free money, perhaps not even a fed window to speak of!



    Which bills?
    Health care, Cap and Trade, the new credit card regulations, and who knows what else?



    Well, that may be a factor, yes, but the Fed is hardly worried about inflation right at this moment. Deflation is more like it. The Fed has pushed interest rates really really low and lowered the discount rate as well to make it easier for banks to loan out money.
    We are far, far past deflation, this was a short lived factor last year, we are now headed for massive inflation, just as soon as that little boy bernanke take his finger out of the dyke.

  10. #280
    Traditionalist
    phattonez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Last Seen
    12-05-17 @ 03:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    20,072

    Re: LA Times: Obama stimulus spending: $246,436 per new job

    Quote Originally Posted by carlkay58 View Post
    This has been neatly defeated by the 'prevailing union wages' law (I can't recall the name off the top of my head) that forces the government to pay top dollar whether during a downturn or not. There goes one of Keynes' primary arguments.
    Davis-Bacon Act.

    Who shall ascend the hill of the Lord? And who shall stand in his holy place? He who has clean hands and a pure heart, who does not lift up his soul to what is false, and does not swear deceitfully. Psalm 24
    "True law is right reason in agreement with nature . . . Whoever is disobedient is fleeing from himself and denying his human nature [and] will suffer the worst penalties . . ." - Cicero

Page 28 of 63 FirstFirst ... 18262728293038 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •