It looks like it has saved thousands of jobs to me.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33.../business-us_business/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33.../business-us_business/
Who said the stimulus plan isn't working?
- Thread starter Ausm
- Start date
it's working beyond Joe Biden's wildest dreams.
in related news, expect a chicken in every pot this winter.
in related news, expect a chicken in every pot this winter.
I think he already answered that with his usual answer, no.
The right's main point seems to be the shocking fact that saving the economy cost money.
I know that the GOP is all for protecting the corporations but their incessant love of deregulation played an important part of almost destroying our economy.
Something to remember is the massive, massive trillions made by the most wealthy in recent deacdes from those policies, the transfer of wealth to the top.
Sure, there was a crash later, predictably, but it doesn't change the huge, long-term shift in wealth distribution to the top. Most rich people are far better off from the policies.
When a billionare's income goes up 600% and he loses half in the crash, it's not the same as an average American who sees no increase after inflation and loses half in the crash.
It began with Reagan's assault on the middleclass Reagonomics ... wealth will trickle down to the peons give me a break. lmfao
maybe my understanding of this is wrong, but it seems like the stimulus money didn't "fix" the CA budget problem, it just kicked the can down the road and let them ignore their issues for a few more months. the fact hat California is up shit's creek without a paddle doesn't seem to have changed and job losses as a whole are significantly above where the administration projected them to be.
the construction jobs are an obviously nice boost, but what happens to them once the projects are completed?
Wow, it helped overpaid union jobs that probably won't be there next year anyways. Way to go. It only cost how many tens of millions per job saved... Oh yeah, forget about those that it did not save, you know the tens of millions of people that are still looking for work.
Let me repeat what's been said about a cyclical economy we have:
There are three engines: consumers, business and government.
During the cycles when consumers and businesses fail, to prevent the further collapse, there's a benefit to government increasing its spending and keeping the machine in place.
The idea is for the other sectors to do better following that.
Now, it'd be nice to avoid the downturns, get your Nobel when you answer that part.
Of course, we did end the massive crashes for 50 years, with the New Deal regulations that were repealed by the Wall Street influence on government beginning with Reagan.
Ignoring the absurd phony facts you make up, what's your plan for those other workers?
(Let me guess - tax cuts are the solution)?
Fern
Elite Member
- Sep 30, 2003
- 26,907
- 174
- 106
A substantial chunk of the stimulus was "welfare" money to states.
Did it save 10's of thousands of teachers' jobs?
Nobody knows. Most states have mandatory rules on size of classrooms, so it's rather doubtful. Most schools are primarily funded by real estate taxes levied at the local (city and/or county) level. So it's more accurate to say that the stimulus money spent on school funding probrably either (1) helped states from borrowing more and getting further into debt and/or (2) avoided the necessity of cities/counties raising real estate tax rates drastically to fund eductaion requirements. (we're just swapping one tax for another)
And YES, it is just kicking the can down the road. Unless (and until) we get this economy going - generating more GDP and getting people employed (thus generating tax revenue) we're going to be in the same position again in a few short months.
But some state/local government employee jobs were saved - in the short term.
Fern
No surprise it is simply keeping some government jobs....you know those which create no wealth (and taxes) rather just suck it away. Government jobs are the first that should be cut in times of a bad economy because there are not as many people working to PAY FOR THEM.
The stimulus is not working if it is not creating or keeping any PRIVATE sector jobs. I realize that is a hard concept for the crowd that gets paid by Uncle Sugar.
I was going to criticize the flaws in your post, but instead I'll note you stumbled across something closer to the truth than you probably realize.
Taxing the rich who have seen their incomes rise several hundred percent and providing relief to the rest of Americans actually would have economic benefits, compared to the current situation which has simply extracted massive wealth out of fueling the broader economy and put it in the pockets of the rich to own more of the nation.
Yes, education and infrastructure are economic wastes, when we should be increasing the bonuses for Wall Street for manipulating the money.
And clearly none of the money paid to the teachers and laborers goes to any private businesses when they spend. Can I nominate you for the Economics Nobel next year?
bamacre
Lifer
- Jul 1, 2004
- 21,029
- 2
- 61
What's so funny is that we all went through this same crap while Bush was in office, only the teams were switched around. The Republicans kept chiming in to say the economy was doing great, that Bush's economic stimulus plan to get us out of the dot com crash was working. Of course, others came in and told the truth, that we weren't getting wealthy, we were just going even further into debt.
As for the OP,...
Probably the 10 to 20% of people who are completely unemployed or have a job that pays shit, and especially the younger, half of whom are jobless.
As for the OP,...
Probably the 10 to 20% of people who are completely unemployed or have a job that pays shit, and especially the younger, half of whom are jobless.
I still don't get all the hate against the rich by Craig and others. What do you think rich people do with their money, hide it in their pillows?
Billionaires' money is in the companies they own. These happen to be the same companies that employ millions of people and develop and provide all kinds of products and services for everyone. The dollar figure you see under, say, Bill Gates' name means that Microsoft is a huge and thriving company, with Gates having a controlling interest in the company.
Economics is not a zero-sum game. When one person becomes rich, it does not mean he has stolen it from everyone else. Take Microsoft, again, as an example. Most of their income is from software (let's say Windows and Office). You might say they are stealing money from everyone who buys Office and Windows. But before they developed these programs, no one could buy them in the first place. And, now, no one can force you to buy them. So, Microsoft has created wealth because they created a useful product (since it can be used for so many purposes and speed up and enhance all other kinds of business, research, and production).
This of course does not apply to everyone; Madoff, for example, simply ripped people off (which was illegal by the way).
Let's put this another way. If you took every single rich person and taxed 90% of their net worth to give away to the poorest portion of the country, the net effect would be that Microsoft et. al would be owned by millions of people and it would falter and fail quickly. Thousands (millions?) in the computer industry would be adversely affected.
Put all the trust you want in the poor, but there is a good reason they are poor: they make very bad decisions with their money and do not develop useful skills for the modern world.
Billionaires' money is in the companies they own. These happen to be the same companies that employ millions of people and develop and provide all kinds of products and services for everyone. The dollar figure you see under, say, Bill Gates' name means that Microsoft is a huge and thriving company, with Gates having a controlling interest in the company.
Economics is not a zero-sum game. When one person becomes rich, it does not mean he has stolen it from everyone else. Take Microsoft, again, as an example. Most of their income is from software (let's say Windows and Office). You might say they are stealing money from everyone who buys Office and Windows. But before they developed these programs, no one could buy them in the first place. And, now, no one can force you to buy them. So, Microsoft has created wealth because they created a useful product (since it can be used for so many purposes and speed up and enhance all other kinds of business, research, and production).
This of course does not apply to everyone; Madoff, for example, simply ripped people off (which was illegal by the way).
Let's put this another way. If you took every single rich person and taxed 90% of their net worth to give away to the poorest portion of the country, the net effect would be that Microsoft et. al would be owned by millions of people and it would falter and fail quickly. Thousands (millions?) in the computer industry would be adversely affected.
Put all the trust you want in the poor, but there is a good reason they are poor: they make very bad decisions with their money and do not develop useful skills for the modern world.
IndyColtsFan
Lifer
- Sep 22, 2007
- 33,655
- 687
- 126
You bring tears to my eyes too Dave -- of laughter. Please, keep posting, especially more of your predictions. I need the laughs. :laugh:
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter