IF higher taxes will create jobs, why did the stimulus fail?

[Jarhead]

I am un sure that anyone claimed we had not

You must be reading a different thread.



Who said that?


Who said that?


Will we have to pay off the loans some day? Sure.

Will we pay it off in fewer real dollars than what we borrowed? Probably.

Would we owe more if we instead allowed the economy to collapse? Yes.

Why did it fail?

Who said it failed? Not me.

Ok if it did not fail then what grade would you give it?
and why?

It did fail.

First barometer was set by the President himself.
Unemployment will not go above 8%.

Sure..he spun that with the "imagine if we didnt" crap...but he made a commitment and it did not hold...so that made it a failure.

Second barometer was history. Recessions last 6 months to 18 months on average...this one lasted longer.

Sure, there is the spin of "great depression" and "not your normal recession"....but that is spin as is evident by the markets...the market has risen steadily over the months.....this was not "the worst recession since the great depression"..

That was just political rhetoric and the people fell for it.

 

[8537]

Ok if it did not fail then what grade would you give it?
and why?

A solid "C". As fiscal stimulus goes, it wasn't very well targeted and it relied to heavily on state management and distribution - which meant in the end it was often used to plug holes in state budgets.

 

[rightwinger]

IF higher taxes will create jobs, why did the stimulus fail?

The stimulus failed because 40% of it was set aside for tax cuts

So then those that voted for it voted for a failed program that cost us over 800 billion in borrowed money.

Tax cuts or not, they rpomised us it was a good investment. They were wrong. They gambled a hell of a lot of money on an obvious long shot.

It should have all been targeted for obvious job creation/job saving measures

It did save many teacher, police and firemens jobs as well as some much needed public works. However, once the politicians go involved it became another gravy train

Even for the Republicans who voted against it

 

[JRK]

IF higher taxes will create jobs, why did the stimulus fail?

The stimulus failed because 40% of it was set aside for tax cuts

So then those that voted for it voted for a failed program that cost us over 800 billion in borrowed money.

Tax cuts or not, they rpomised us it was a good investment. They were wrong. They gambled a hell of a lot of money on an obvious long shot.

to be honest if you add Obama's use of tarp the % of tax cuts was about 25%
without it it was 33%
this means a tax hike of 75% because tarp was more cash that Obama used in his slush fund. it is no different
GM alone got over 70 billion with GMAC with the use of tarp money that included making there first payment with tarp funds
Taxpayers are naturally eager for news about bailout repayments. But what neither G.M. nor the Treasury disclosed was that the company simply used other funds held by the Treasury to pay off its original loan.
NYT: GM, Treasury lied about bailout repayment « Hot Air

 

[Jarhead]

Ok if it did not fail then what grade would you give it?
and why?

A solid "C". As fiscal stimulus goes, it wasn't very well targeted and it relied to heavily on state management and distribution - which meant in the end it was often used to plug holes in state budgets.

I disagree..

Actually, I disagree based on your contradiction.

It was NOT very well targeted. If it were, it would not have relied on state management and distribution.

So it was poorly targeted....poorly spent...poorly managed....and ther results did not produce anything we were assured.

To me, that is an utter failure.

And a hell of a gamble with 800 billion dollars we had to borrow.

 

[JRK]

Ok if it did not fail then what grade would you give it?
and why?

A solid "C". As fiscal stimulus goes, it wasn't very well targeted and it relied to heavily on state management and distribution - which meant in the end it was often used to plug holes in state budgets.

1 trillion dollars and we have 6 million jobs fewer than we had in 2008 and you give that event a grade of average?

2008...... 136,790 114,281 21,334 767 7,162 13,406
2009...... 130,807 108,252 18,557 694 6,016 11,847

2010...... 129,818 107,337 17,755 705 5,526 11,524
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.ceseeb1.txt

I am at a loss for words
thats at a level of denial I cannot fathom
I asked

 

[8537]

Ok if it did not fail then what grade would you give it?
and why?

A solid "C". As fiscal stimulus goes, it wasn't very well targeted and it relied to heavily on state management and distribution - which meant in the end it was often used to plug holes in state budgets.

I disagree..

Actually, I disagree based on your contradiction.

It was NOT very well targeted. If it were, it would not have relied on state management and distribution.

it DID rely - very heavily - on state management and distribution. Large amounts of it were set aside for CDBG, CSBG, state highway programs, state education spending etc...

 

[JRK]

Ok if it did not fail then what grade would you give it?
and why?

A solid "C". As fiscal stimulus goes, it wasn't very well targeted and it relied to heavily on state management and distribution - which meant in the end it was often used to plug holes in state budgets.

I disagree..

Actually, I disagree based on your contradiction.

It was NOT very well targeted. If it were, it would not have relied on state management and distribution.

So it was poorly targeted....poorly spent...poorly managed....and ther results did not produce anything we were assured.

To me, that is an utter failure.

And a hell of a gamble with 800 billion dollars we had to borrow.

Jarhead he also had 350 billion dollars of tarp he used at the same time, not all of it, but allot of it

 

[GoneBezerk]

His fingerprints were all over it.

Do you think he would just sign a huge bill starting out his term without being involved with the goodies inside???

Reid, Pelosi and Obama are to blame for the failure.

Obama blew money on building roads, funding art projects, funding bogus collge research studies, etc...things not focused on creating more jobs through more capital wealth.

He just stole taxpayer money and gave it out to his friends, then wondered why it didn't employ people beyond a couple Govt jobs that he created to dole out the money.

I dont blame Obama. He simply signed it inot law.

I blame the creators and the subsequent passers of the law...and the spin they attached to it as they tried to explain to the American people (their employers) why it is such a good thing.

In essence, they lied to us as we allowed them to pay back their political supporters.

 

[Jarhead]

A solid "C". As fiscal stimulus goes, it wasn't very well targeted and it relied to heavily on state management and distribution - which meant in the end it was often used to plug holes in state budgets.

I disagree..

Actually, I disagree based on your contradiction.

It was NOT very well targeted. If it were, it would not have relied on state management and distribution.

So it was poorly targeted....poorly spent...poorly managed....and ther results did not produce anything we were assured.

To me, that is an utter failure.

And a hell of a gamble with 800 billion dollars we had to borrow.

Jarhead he also had 350 billion dollars of tarp he used at the same time, not all of it, but allot of it

Dont get me started on TARP.
Never agreed with TARP....against all I believe in.
You fail./...you fail. Learn from it, dust yourself off and start again.
Who the hell is our government to decide who deserves to not have to suffer the negative ramifications of failure.

 

[8537]

Ok if it did not fail then what grade would you give it?
and why?

A solid "C". As fiscal stimulus goes, it wasn't very well targeted and it relied to heavily on state management and distribution - which meant in the end it was often used to plug holes in state budgets.

1 trillion dollars and we have 6 million jobs fewer than we had in 2008 and you give that event a grade of average?

2008...... 136,790 114,281 21,334 767 7,162 13,406
2009...... 130,807 108,252 18,557 694 6,016 11,847

2010...... 129,818 107,337 17,755 705 5,526 11,524
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.ceseeb1.txt

I am at a loss for words
thats at a level of denial I cannot fathom
I asked

The stimulus bill can not be held accountable for job losses that occurred before the bill was passed. Since it was passed, monthly job creation has gone from a loss of about 750K per month to a gain of about 240K per month despite declines in public sector employment.



GDP growth has gone from -6% to positive 2-5%.

 

[Jarhead]

His fingerprints were all over it.

Do you think he would just sign a huge bill starting out his term without being involved with the goodies inside???

Reid, Pelosi and Obama are to blame for the failure.

Obama blew money on building roads, funding art projects, funding bogus collge research studies, etc...things not focused on creating more jobs through more capital wealth.

He just stole taxpayer money and gave it out to his friends, then wondered why it didn't employ people beyond a couple Govt jobs that he created to dole out the money.

I dont blame Obama. He simply signed it inot law.

I blame the creators and the subsequent passers of the law...and the spin they attached to it as they tried to explain to the American people (their employers) why it is such a good thing.

In essence, they lied to us as we allowed them to pay back their political supporters.

without a majority vote, he would have had nothing to sign.
To me, the President is important ONLY for two things.....international diplomacy and homeland morale.

And although he showed some glimpses of brilliance immediately following the Arizona shooting, he has failed miserably at both in my eyes.

The world still hates us....seems even more than ever before (not that I care...I dont)...and it surely seems we have an even bigger class divide now than I have witnessed in my entire adult life.

 

[Jarhead]

A solid "C". As fiscal stimulus goes, it wasn't very well targeted and it relied to heavily on state management and distribution - which meant in the end it was often used to plug holes in state budgets.

1 trillion dollars and we have 6 million jobs fewer than we had in 2008 and you give that event a grade of average?

2008...... 136,790 114,281 21,334 767 7,162 13,406
2009...... 130,807 108,252 18,557 694 6,016 11,847

2010...... 129,818 107,337 17,755 705 5,526 11,524
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.ceseeb1.txt

I am at a loss for words
thats at a level of denial I cannot fathom
I asked

The stimulus bill can not be held accountable for job losses that occurred before the bill was passed. Since it was passed, monthly job creation has gone from a loss of about 750K per month to a gain of about 240K per month despite declines in public sector employment.



GDP growth has gone from -6% to positive 2-5%.

it is not difficult to create public sector jobs with tax payer money when you dont need to be acoutnable for head count...and profitibility per head

The stimulus did not "create" necessary jobs...it simply gave reasons for people to get a paycheck.

 

[The Rabbi]

Your proposition is that if we didnt spend trillions of dollars on a failed stimulus we would owe more money?

Long term? Yes. I don't expect you to understand it. You've demonstrated your intellectual capacity in the past and I'm quite certain the idea is above it. Hello?

Wow. Just wow. I didnt think anyone could be that ignorant about economics and still be able to make change from a dime. But I guess I was wrong.
So your position is that by spending trillions of dollars today (which have to be borrowed and thus accrue interest payments) we are better off than if we hadn't spent the money.

Are you just fooling with me or do you actually believe that? That's a serious question because I want to see just how stupid you really are.

 

[8537]

1 trillion dollars and we have 6 million jobs fewer than we had in 2008 and you give that event a grade of average?

2008...... 136,790 114,281 21,334 767 7,162 13,406
2009...... 130,807 108,252 18,557 694 6,016 11,847

2010...... 129,818 107,337 17,755 705 5,526 11,524
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.ceseeb1.txt

I am at a loss for words
thats at a level of denial I cannot fathom
I asked

The stimulus bill can not be held accountable for job losses that occurred before the bill was passed. Since it was passed, monthly job creation has gone from a loss of about 750K per month to a gain of about 240K per month despite declines in public sector employment.



GDP growth has gone from -6% to positive 2-5%.

it is not difficult to create public sector jobs with tax payer money when you dont need to be acoutnable for head count...and profitibility per head

The stimulus did not "create" necessary jobs...it simply gave reasons for people to get a paycheck.

The private sector has been creating jobs for well over a year.

 

[Charles_Main]

IF higher taxes will create jobs, why did the stimulus fail?

The stimulus failed because 40% of it was set aside for tax cuts

LOL, yeah it had nothing to do with the 40% of it that was simply given to states to bail out their Medicaid Budgets. Nor did the other 20% that was spent mostly on Union Construction positions that were temporary. It was all due to the tax cuts.

You guys are such unbelievably stupid people. Blame the only thing in the Stimulus that had any chance of stimulating the Private sector for the Bill Failing, and ignore that the other 60% was wasted on Failing Social Medicine programs and Union pay offs.

Classic.

 

[8537]

Wow. Just wow. I didnt think anyone could be that ignorant about economics and still be able to make change from a dime. But I guess I was wrong.
So your position is that by spending trillions of dollars today (which have to be borrowed and thus accrue interest payments) we are better off than if we hadn't spent the money.

Yes.

Take Steve Jobs: Was he made better off by going into debt?

Was the US better off after deficit spending in 1941?

As I said, I carry misconceptions that you might actually understand the economics involved. I also know that any attempt to explain it would be met with your usual stupidity and name calling.

Other people get it. You don't, and it's not my concern.

 

[Jarhead]

Your proposition is that if we didnt spend trillions of dollars on a failed stimulus we would owe more money?

Long term? Yes. I don't expect you to understand it. You've demonstrated your intellectual capacity in the past and I'm quite certain the idea is above it. Hello?

Wow. Just wow. I didnt think anyone could be that ignorant about economics and still be able to make change from a dime. But I guess I was wrong.
So your position is that by spending trillions of dollars today (which have to be borrowed and thus accrue interest payments) we are better off than if we hadn't spent the money.

Are you just fooling with me or do you actually believe that? That's a serious question because I want to see just how stupid you really are.

Actually, there are some that do believe that...and there is valid reason to believe it. I dont agree and believe the valid reasons are completely overshadowed by the exceptions to the rules that need to come into play that will not...but never-the-less, they are valid reasons.

Many that are more of a progressive thinking are not morons.....they are less pro-active in my eyes...and more presumptuous.......but by no menas are they morons

 

[Jarhead]

Wow. Just wow. I didnt think anyone could be that ignorant about economics and still be able to make change from a dime. But I guess I was wrong.
So your position is that by spending trillions of dollars today (which have to be borrowed and thus accrue interest payments) we are better off than if we hadn't spent the money.

Yes.

Take Steve Jobs: Was he made better off by going into debt?

Was the US better off after deficit spending in 1941?

As I said, I carry misconceptions that you might actually understand the economics involved. I also know that any attempt to explain it would be met with your usual stupidity and name calling.

Other people get it. You don't, and it's not my concern.

only a msall precentage win when they go into debt.
Too many factors must fall into place for it to work......certainly not worth the gamble for a government ALREADY in debt.

 

[Jarhead]

The stimulus bill can not be held accountable for job losses that occurred before the bill was passed. Since it was passed, monthly job creation has gone from a loss of about 750K per month to a gain of about 240K per month despite declines in public sector employment.



GDP growth has gone from -6% to positive 2-5%.

it is not difficult to create public sector jobs with tax payer money when you dont need to be acoutnable for head count...and profitibility per head

The stimulus did not "create" necessary jobs...it simply gave reasons for people to get a paycheck.

The private sector has been creating jobs for well over a year.

yes...a natural occurance created by the need for replacement goods and services.

It happens after a recession all the time.

People can go with holes in their socks just so long.