Page 35 of 63 FirstFirst ... 25333435363745 ... LastLast
Results 341 to 350 of 628

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

  1. #341
    Professor
    Dutch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Northern Arkansas
    Last Seen
    08-23-17 @ 09:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,808

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Goldenboy219 View Post
    Government spending was greater under the New Deal, or WWII?
    ww 2 by a huge margin.
    He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire. ~ Winston Churchill

  2. #342
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,263

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

    Quote Originally Posted by EpicDude86 View Post
    Right, but if I didn't have to pay taxes, I'd have more to spend. And if the Government hadn't spent its way into this mess in the first place it wouldn't need to take my money and spend it where it supposedly needs to be spent.
    This recession is not caused by government spending, ala stagflation. Instead, we have an indebted society that will save tax incentives, therefore taxation is a limited route. Secondly, the stimulus and other aspects are deficit ridden, therefore you are not being taxed for these expenditures. You will in the future, but not now. Therefore your point is moot, and there is no crowding out at the moment.

    The key is spending, although this is only achieved by job creation.
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    "Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911

  3. #343
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,263

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Dutch View Post
    ww 2 by a huge margin.
    That is correct. I provided proper inflation adjusted numbers in a previous post.
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    "Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911

  4. #344
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Epic Mountain
    Last Seen
    12-28-09 @ 06:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,384

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Goldenboy219 View Post
    This recession is not caused by government spending, ala stagflation. Instead, we have an indebted society that will save tax incentives, therefore taxation is a limited route. Secondly, the stimulus and other aspects are deficit ridden, therefore you are not being taxed for these expenditures. You will in the future, but not now. Therefore your point is moot, and there is no crowding out at the moment.

    The key is spending, although this is only achieved by job creation.
    Perhaps living within our means would have been a good option?

  5. #345
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,263

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

    Quote Originally Posted by EpicDude86 View Post
    Perhaps living within our means would have been a good option?
    Perhaps you are quite correct. However, it does nothing to better our current situation to bring up what we could have done. This does not negate the fact that spending is the key to recovery. I have no qualm whether it is private or public.
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    "Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911

  6. #346
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Epic Mountain
    Last Seen
    12-28-09 @ 06:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,384

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Goldenboy219 View Post
    Perhaps you are quite correct. However, it does nothing to better our current situation to bring up what we could have done. This does not negate the fact that spending is the key to recovery. I have no qualm whether it is private or public.
    My point is that the government shouldn't spend US out of debt, they should make sure the same issues don't happen during the course of recovery and let us do it. Increasing shopper morale and at the same time keeping them in a safe, straight line til we're out of the mess. But I'm no economist.

  7. #347
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,552

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

    Quote Originally Posted by EpicDude86 View Post
    Right, but if I didn't have to pay taxes, I'd have more to spend. And if the Government hadn't spent its way into this mess in the first place it wouldn't need to take my money and spend it where it supposedly needs to be spent.
    It's a waste of time trying to explain to them that the government can't create economic growth, because all the money they have to use to to create that growth has to come from the private sector, hence, only the private sector can create wealth and economic prosperity. The less money people make, the fewer taxes they can pay and the less consumer spending there will be.

    Rich politicians didn't get rich in the goverment, they got rich in the private sector, but you're never be able to explain that to some folks.
    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.

  8. #348
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,552

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Goldenboy219 View Post
    This recession is not caused by government spending, ala stagflation. Instead, we have an indebted society that will save tax incentives, therefore taxation is a limited route. Secondly, the stimulus and other aspects are deficit ridden, therefore you are not being taxed for these expenditures. You will in the future, but not now. Therefore your point is moot, and there is no crowding out at the moment.

    The key is spending, although this is only achieved by job creation.
    The recession was caused the politicians constantly undermining consumer conidence. They told the country, enough times, that the economy was in the toilet, until it finally became true. Now, those same politicos are finding out that they sold their souls to the devil, just to get elected.
    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. #349
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    05-16-15 @ 02:32 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,537

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

    well...

    it's a matter of degree

    LOL!

    14% of gdp is deficit

    talk to keynes about THAT

    SERVICE on the debt, MERE INTEREST alone, is to reach ONE TRIL per by 2017

    ask the grey lady

    north dakota's kent conrad, the GATEKEEPER's (baucus') right hand, joined forces with enemy red, in the person of judd gregg, to initiate some kinda "debt commission" which will impose something like graham/rudman restrictions on spending and borrowing

    membership no longer trusts leadership

    the ranks rise up, grab the reins

    they have some 35 senators behind them (according to the sunday chats)

    it's a NEW development, granted

    but its significance is clear

    they're in opposition to optimistic obama

    and, yes, harry's trying to hammer em

    just give it a month

    Leading Senators introduce legislation for fiscal commission - Dec. 9, 2009

  10. #350
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,263

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

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    It's a waste of time trying to explain to them that the government can't create economic growth, because all the money they have to use to to create that growth has to come from the private sector, hence, only the private sector can create wealth and economic prosperity. The less money people make, the fewer taxes they can pay and the less consumer spending there will be.

    Rich politicians didn't get rich in the goverment, they got rich in the private sector, but you're never be able to explain that to some folks.
    Totally rantish, without anything of substance.... Explain the Louisiana Purchase if you will/could!
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    "Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911

Page 35 of 63 FirstFirst ... 25333435363745 ... 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
  •