Republicans oppose economic stimulus

[Flopper]

Any improvement in the economy between now and the election will only help Obama. There is no reason why House Republicans should vote for anything that might decrease unemployment.

 

[Avatar4321]

Any improvement in the economy between now and the election will only help Obama. There is no reason why House Republicans should vote for anything that might decrease unemployment.

except, unlike Democrats, Republicans actually want to fix the economy.

 

[chikenwing]

Gee the Gov runs the national debt to the hilt,but what the heck they know what their doing,lets go for it!!

Just doesn't make sense.

 

[Rozman]

because the government spending money doesn't fix the economy, but the government taking less money from the people is a whole different story

Exactly HOW MANY jobs were created by extending the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy, err, I mean "job creators"?

Probably just as many as were "saved" by the Stimulus.
If jobs were "saved" by Stimulus I'm sure just as many were "saved" by the Bush tax cuts...

 

[Intense]

Let's just audit the Federal Reserve, and after the dust settles, we can reinvent, Fire, the Wheel, the loom, and sparkling spring water.

P.S. Drinking Alcohol.

 

[Avatar4321]

Let's just audit the Federal Reserve, and after the dust settles, we can reinvent, Fire, the Wheel, the loom, and sparkling spring water.

P.S. Drinking Alcohol.

No need to reinvent if we can save some books.

 

[Intense]

Any improvement in the economy between now and the election will only help Obama. There is no reason why House Republicans should vote for anything that might decrease unemployment.

except, unlike Democrats, Republicans actually want to fix the economy.

Just remember 3 for me, 1 for you. What's mine is mine, what's yours is mine. Protect my entitlement at all cost.

 

[Dragon]

except, unlike Democrats, Republicans actually want to fix the economy.

A dubious claim. Everything the Republicans are proposing to do (cut taxes on the rich even further, cut government spending, lay off government employees, encourage outsourcing even more) will actually hurt the economy. So either you're wrong, and the Republicans don't want to fix the economy, or you're right, and they're totally clueless how to go about it.

I'm not prepared to guess which, honestly.

 

[The Rabbi]

Any improvement in the economy between now and the election will only help Obama. There is no reason why House Republicans should vote for anything that might decrease unemployment.

That's why they're opposing the president's bill. If they passed it the whole economy would go down the crapper.

 

[Intense]

except, unlike Democrats, Republicans actually want to fix the economy.

A dubious claim. Everything the Republicans are proposing to do (cut taxes on the rich even further, cut government spending, lay off government employees, encourage outsourcing even more) will actually hurt the economy. So either you're wrong, and the Republicans don't want to fix the economy, or you're right, and their totally clueless how to go about it.

I'm not prepared to guess which, honestly.

When you shop, do you prefer to wait for the Sales to start or end? It is that simple.
Do you spend more when the price is right?
Do Sales effect your spending habits?
Be honest now.
....Yes.... Exactly?
Who profits besides the Retailers, the Wholesalers, the Distributors, the Manufacturers, and all of their Employee's, when Product and Services change Hands? .... What?..... The Government. .... Exactly.
Everytime something moves the Government gets a piece of it at multiple levels.
Wow! OMG!
So what does the Government do when It want's to slow down the flow?
It raises cost!!! OMG! Wow! Raising cost and limiting access as a form of control! Boo!!!

 

[bripat9643]

because the government spending money doesn't fix the economy, but the government taking less money from the people is a whole different story

Exactly HOW MANY jobs were created by extending the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy, err, I mean "job creators"?

100 million jobs were saved.

 

[bripat9643]

No stimulus. Fire thousands of Government workers. Cut Social security, Medicare, Medicaid. Eliminate food stamps. eliminate the national parks, NASA, Dept of Education. Sounds like a return to 1900 America to me.

Yep. And your objection is?

 

[bripat9643]

Japan went down this road

Well, at least you got that part right. Japan did indeed go down this road - and they failed to arrest the housing collapse, failed to provide enough liquidity to the financial system and allowed a new equilibrium level of employment to take hold.

Let's hope we're smarter than Japan, huh?

Yes, let's hope we are. Let's hope we're smart enough to kick out the scumbags who want to pour good money after bad.

 

[naturegirl]

because the government spending money doesn't fix the economy, but the government taking less money from the people is a whole different story

Exactly HOW MANY jobs were created by extending the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy, err, I mean "job creators"?

100 million jobs were saved.

 

[Dragon]

When you shop, do you prefer to wait for the Sales to start or end? It is that simple.

LOL no it's not. We're not talking about a shopping spree here, we're talking about investment.

So what does the Government do when It want's to slow down the flow?
It raises cost!!! OMG! Wow! Raising cost and limiting access as a form of control! Boo!!!

I'm not completely sure what you're trying to say here, but if you mean that the cost of hiring someone is the limiting factor on putting people back to work and raising the economy out of its doldrums, you're wrong. The limiting factor is consumer demand. Regardless of the cost, businesses will hire people if they need to in order to satisfy demand for the products/services to be produced by that labor. If not, they won't. It's THAT simple.

Cutting federal spending will reduce demand for goods and services to the extent that the government represents a share of that demand. Laying off government employees reduces consumer demand for obvious reasons. Cutting taxes on the rich raises the deficit, which makes it harder for the government to respond flexibly to the situation. Raising taxes on the non-rich, e.g. by increasing the payroll tax, reduces consumer demand. All of these things will make things worse.

Obama's stimulus package as he's proposed it is only marginally better than the first one. Like the first one, it's not nearly big enough to solve our problem. But it will improve things for a while, just as the first one did, because it is the right sort of thing to do, even if it's on too small a scale. Everything the Republicans are proposing, however, will actually hurt, not help.

 

[asterism]

When you shop, do you prefer to wait for the Sales to start or end? It is that simple.

LOL no it's not. We're not talking about a shopping spree here, we're talking about investment.

So what does the Government do when It want's to slow down the flow?
It raises cost!!! OMG! Wow! Raising cost and limiting access as a form of control! Boo!!!

I'm not completely sure what you're trying to say here, but if you mean that the cost of hiring someone is the limiting factor on putting people back to work and raising the economy out of its doldrums, you're wrong. The limiting factor is consumer demand. Regardless of the cost, businesses will hire people if they need to in order to satisfy demand for the products/services to be produced by that labor. If not, they won't. It's THAT simple.

Cutting federal spending will reduce demand for goods and services to the extent that the government represents a share of that demand. Laying off government employees reduces consumer demand for obvious reasons. Cutting taxes on the rich raises the deficit, which makes it harder for the government to respond flexibly to the situation. Raising taxes on the non-rich, e.g. by increasing the payroll tax, reduces consumer demand. All of these things will make things worse.

Obama's stimulus package as he's proposed it is only marginally better than the first one. Like the first one, it's not nearly big enough to solve our problem. But it will improve things for a while, just as the first one did, because it is the right sort of thing to do, even if it's on too small a scale. Everything the Republicans are proposing, however, will actually hurt, not help.

Without innovation there will be no increased demand. Innovation requires investment risk. That risk has gone up since 2007 when it was clear taxes and roadblocks to business (especially new business) were going up.

It's that simple.

 

[Intense]

because the government spending money doesn't fix the economy, but the government taking less money from the people is a whole different story

Exactly HOW MANY jobs were created by extending the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy, err, I mean "job creators"?

100 million jobs were saved.

More like a Zillion, or infinity.

 

[Charles_Main]

It appears as if Republicans are against any attempt to revive the economy

Fed chairman gets letter from GOP leaders: No stimulus - Yahoo! Finance

If it involves Building up mass amounts of new debt, in an effort to buy nothing but a short term Gain, Then hell yes they are. They better be or those of us who helped put them there, will put someone else there.

 

[Dragon]

Without innovation there will be no increased demand.

Untrue, in fact, the exact opposite is true: without increased demand there will be no innovation. Also no further investment in the old ho-hum not-so-innovative parts of the economy. When people have no money to spend, not only are there no customers for mundane ordinary business, but people also have no money to spend on innovative products. Innovation is a child of good times, not bad ones.

 

[Intense]

When you shop, do you prefer to wait for the Sales to start or end? It is that simple.

LOL no it's not. We're not talking about a shopping spree here, we're talking about investment.

So what does the Government do when It want's to slow down the flow?
It raises cost!!! OMG! Wow! Raising cost and limiting access as a form of control! Boo!!!

I'm not completely sure what you're trying to say here, but if you mean that the cost of hiring someone is the limiting factor on putting people back to work and raising the economy out of its doldrums, you're wrong. The limiting factor is consumer demand. Regardless of the cost, businesses will hire people if they need to in order to satisfy demand for the products/services to be produced by that labor. If not, they won't. It's THAT simple.

Cutting federal spending will reduce demand for goods and services to the extent that the government represents a share of that demand. Laying off government employees reduces consumer demand for obvious reasons. Cutting taxes on the rich raises the deficit, which makes it harder for the government to respond flexibly to the situation. Raising taxes on the non-rich, e.g. by increasing the payroll tax, reduces consumer demand. All of these things will make things worse.

Obama's stimulus package as he's proposed it is only marginally better than the first one. Like the first one, it's not nearly big enough to solve our problem. But it will improve things for a while, just as the first one did, because it is the right sort of thing to do, even if it's on too small a scale. Everything the Republicans are proposing, however, will actually hurt, not help.

LOL no it's not. We're not talking about a shopping spree here, we're talking about investment.

We are talking about Goods and Services, all cogs in the economic Machine, When they move the Government gets it's piece of the pie. Volume is an important factor here that you are overlooking.

I'm not completely sure what you're trying to say here, but if you mean that the cost of hiring someone is the limiting factor on putting people back to work and raising the economy out of its doldrums, you're wrong. The limiting factor is consumer demand. Regardless of the cost, businesses will hire people if they need to in order to satisfy demand for the products/services to be produced by that labor. If not, they won't. It's THAT simple.

Honesty is good. Misapplied, but honest. You presume that I meant the cost of hiring is the limited factor, further, your claim that Consumer Demand is the factor, yet that is not true either. No matter how much you may want to buy a house or a car, if it is out of reach, it is out of reach. Big Government has had a bug up it's ass in relation to Artificial Price Control and Regulation, inflating sticker price, List Price, Retail Price, in it's own mind, controlling Labor and Production Cost, which deter buying. Lowering cost, per unit, making up for the difference selling in volume, is something the Union Mind, the Government mind, cannot digest. These are free Market Principles, and they balance out. On your end it is about control through Monopolizing and Price Fixing.

Take Cell Phone Contracts, or Credit Card Interest Rates. Who is protecting Who's interests? Isn't it obvious? Appeal and affordability will always effect demand, if not, Why is so much invested in marketing? If marketing is not effective, why is it so lucrative an industry? Hiring is a part of the equation, yet it has to be earned, it is not an entitlement. The cart does not come before the horse. As Business grows, slots open up.

You do not start a Business to hire people. Hiring and maintaining your workforce does not take precedent over What you provide or who you provide it to. Keeping the ship afloat requires talent, skill, and an ability to adapt and meet challenge. Try it sometime.