Jobs

Well I see a basic common link on this thread so I will go with it. Lets see what people say, We should tell Obama dont create jobs, dont modernize our schools, hosipitals, government buildings etc. Let the roads stay the way they are hell lets even cut back funding on those things it seems no one cares anyway. Lets cut the all the things he plans and the items like extending unemployment why because it takes money, no one wants to pay taxes or more taxes. So if the government does all this how many people lose their jobs, homes, everything before it gets better. How many on this forum will not be able to post because they had to drop their ISP. Most likely everyone here currently has a job. So your look at the situation is based on your outlook, you are not the man with the house and four kids who had a good job, paid his bills on time, had good credit, had a loan with that job he could pay. Loses his job, now has to worry about his family and weather they will have a home after the mortgage cannot get paid, much less if he can feed his kids do you tell him no we shouldnt spend money to get you some kind of job. We should let the economy work itself out well do you???

Letting the market correct itself is exactly what we need to do. Obama's New New Deal is only going to prolong and worsen the recession we're in the same way the original New Deal prolonged the Great Depression. Government spending does not create wealth or jobs, that can only be done by the private sector.
 
Well I see a basic common link on this thread so I will go with it. Lets see what people say, We should tell Obama dont create jobs, dont modernize our schools, hosipitals, government buildings etc. Let the roads stay the way they are hell lets even cut back funding on those things it seems no one cares anyway. Lets cut the all the things he plans and the items like extending unemployment why because it takes money, no one wants to pay taxes or more taxes. So if the government does all this how many people lose their jobs, homes, everything before it gets better. How many on this forum will not be able to post because they had to drop their ISP. Most likely everyone here currently has a job. So your look at the situation is based on your outlook, you are not the man with the house and four kids who had a good job, paid his bills on time, had good credit, had a loan with that job he could pay. Loses his job, now has to worry about his family and weather they will have a home after the mortgage cannot get paid, much less if he can feed his kids do you tell him no we shouldnt spend money to get you some kind of job. We should let the economy work itself out well do you???

Roads and bridges do need upgrades, and it would be nice to upgrade our infrastructure... but we simply can't afford it. It's like a homeowner losing his job, and instead of getting another one, he decides to remodel his kitchen. And, I know you think one can create jobs out of a vacuum, but that's simply is not true. Everything government does has an 'unseen' repercussion that people hardly pay attention to. Money has to come from somewhere, and when it comes from the private sector, it destroys jobs. Prosperity doesn't come from the government, it comes despite the government. Just look at the ridiculous spending in the war in Iraq and the state of the current job market as evidence. So for that man who loses his job, why make it harder for him to find another one, because some guy thinks roads need a 'remodel'?
 
I have a feeling that by the end of Obama's term, we're going to arrive at the conclusion that capitalism AND socialism don't work, because the government will have ruined it for both philosophies by their own irresponsible actions.

When we're hurting dearly in a few years, and everyone will have had the time for Obama's new deal to kick in, we can switch blame from capitalism to socialism, and check those two off the list.

Next up, communism. When the government fucks THAT up, it'll be despotism. And by then, there won't need to be any more changes, because we'll have completely lost our power as the people. All bets will be off at that point.

Just keep listening to the MSM. They'll guide us all in the right direction. :rolleyes:
 
Believe me I do understand what you guys are saying. But what they are talking is direct stimulus to the states, since most states cannot afford to pay some of the people who work for them it makes sense. They are using most likely a multiplier effect with the money going into the states but to be honest when other governments need help we give them money how bad is it they try to find a way to help the american people
 
Believe me I do understand what you guys are saying. But what they are talking is direct stimulus to the states, since most states cannot afford to pay some of the people who work for them it makes sense. They are using most likely a multiplier effect with the money going into the states but to be honest when other governments need help we give them money how bad is it they try to find a way to help the american people

Oh yeah, definitely, the government -can- help the people directly. It needs to reduce in size, eliminate any and all departments it's not authorized to have in the U.S. Constitution (education, energy, commerce, etc), reduce how much we pay for "Defense", reduce how much of a burden it is on economic growth, and simply let people keep their money. You know, Ron Paul once said that if the government reduces in size to how "small" it was in 1997, income taxes wouldn't be at all necessary. Think of the stimulus you'd get from that.
 
Last edited:
Believe me I do understand what you guys are saying. But what they are talking is direct stimulus to the states, since most states cannot afford to pay some of the people who work for them it makes sense. They are using most likely a multiplier effect with the money going into the states but to be honest when other governments need help we give them money how bad is it they try to find a way to help the american people

To give that money to the states the federal government must first tax it from the people, the taxpayer has less money to spend on other things, and those industries that would have gotten the business of the taxpayer suffer because the taxpayer had to cut their spending. Would it not be a better stimulus to simply let the taxpayers keep their money?
 
To give that money to the states the federal government must first tax it from the people...

Not so! All they have to do is raise the numbers in the perpetual debt column... AGAIN. Then, the numbers can be shifted around in other columns to satisfy the demands of the economy.

So, you see, it's all just a numbers game.

And who says that playing the numbers was illegal...


national_debt.gif
 
How do you build an infrastructure that will sustain a city? Think on this, people! Can you do it by demanding that everyone go out and build their share of the water mains and roads neccessary for the existance of a modern city. That everyone build their fair share of the electrical grid and gas mains? Of course, this would be totally unworkable. So what we do is TAX everyone in the city a certain amount in order to cover the costs of the infrastructure neccessary for the existance of said city. The same goes for a nation. Taxes are what we pay to live in a civilized society. Yes, they can be unfair, they can be destructive. Yet, to any people, the failure to tax enough to sustain the physical basis of that society will be even more destructive.

I find the idea that their should be no taxes so damned ignorant that I wonder what kind of people actually believe in this nonsense? And I find it far wise to tax and spend, than to spend and borrow. That is how we have come to be where we are right now.



So, I take it you didn't vote for that ignoramous obamalama?
 
Not so! All they have to do is raise the numbers in the perpetual debt column... AGAIN. Then, the numbers can be shifted around in other columns to satisfy the demands of the economy.

So, you see, it's all just a numbers game.

And who says that playing the numbers was illegal...


national_debt.gif

Deficits = Future tax
 
Or immediately..? I've made this point before.. but isn't borrowing is the same thing as taxing, except our children get it paid back with interest? I don't see how you can take money out of the economy, whether it's being promised to be repaid back or not, without negative effects, immediately. Hence why stimulus checks never work.
 
Last edited:
Or immediately..? I've made this point before.. but isn't borrowing is the same thing as taxing, except our children get it paid back with interest? I don't see how you can take money out of the economy, whether it's being promised to be repaid back or not, without negative effects, immediately. Hence why stimulus checks never work.

When the government borrows money from somebody else, China for example, eventually that money has to be paid back. So it amounts to a future tax because the government produces no wealth of it's own and it has to tax in the future to pay it's debts. Borrowing is essentially putting off taxation for some amount of time.
 

Forum List

Back
Top