Well now! Surprise surprise...

[SFC Ollie]

how did i and my fellow letter carriors get jobs with the PO?....who created those jobs?...just wonderin....

Public jobs come at the expense of productive private sector jobs.

but you said..."The government can't create jobs.".....did not the US Govt establish the USPS...as per what the Constitution says....and create the Jobs within and hire accordingly?.....the PO has been around in primitive forms since the 1630's....and in 1775 the PO was established.....and people were hired to do the JOBS required to get the mail delivered....

The current Administration cannot create permanent private sector jobs by spending us into oblivion. For that matter no administration can. It simply doesn't work.

 

[Liability]

Then consider yourself fortunate. That's the part that appears to be waaaaaaaaaaay over your head.

Your general incoherence is showing again, Maggot.

The reality is, I was just making a joke. Like most everything else in the adult world, that too sailed waaay over your pin head.

The Obama Administration has not "created" any fucking jobs. It hasn't "saved" any jobs either. And my job is not depenedent-- one way or the other -- on the Obama Administration's efforts to socialize our economy even further.

Newsflash for you and other libtarded liberoidal lemmings: many of us already realize that we are fortunate. We are fortunate to live in America. The current unfortunate circumstances is that the foundation which MADE America a free and prosperous land is being deliberately undermined by the stupid policies of the moron we elected President and the fools in Congress who share his idiotic political inclinations.

I got the "joke" funnyman. The fact that you were making it a "joke" is what really was funny. A job is a job is a job is a job is a job.

Classic. One idiotic Maggot post on the heels of a prior idiotic Maggot post.

Yes, mutt. A job IS a job IS a job. It's funny that YOU of all people think you can determine what is or isn't funny.

In any event, as always, you miss the point, Maggot.

 

[Foxfyre]

1. Make the Bush tax cuts permanent for the foreseeable future so that private enterprise will be able to plan ahead with confidence. Our President campaigned vigorously on promises to cut taxes on low end businesses and for 90% of the people. Had he done so, we would have had a far less deep and prolonged recession. Had tax relief been provided to all business, we would probably be out of the recession by now and would be thriving.

2. Reduce as much regulation as is reasonable to free up private enterprise to be able to innovate and compete in the free market.

3. Scrap this horrendous healthcare bill completely and adopt as many as possible of the practical and profitable proposed reform measures that can be done immediately and with good results.

4. Scrap the horrendous cap and trade bill completely and focus on helping American industry be able to be boldly innovative and competitively on the open market.

5. If we must go into deeper deficits, provide some low end mortgage insurance or refi that will make it attractive for under water property owners to avoid default and help them tread water until that market recovers. Couple that with scrapping all the stupid initiatives that encourage lending institutions to make high risk loans and reinstate regulation that prohibit lending institutions from risking anything other than their own assets in high risk loans.

6. Announce that the government will freeze spending as much as possible without defaulting on existing obligations, that it will cut spending as much as it can without creating unacceptable hardship, and Congress and the Administration will operate with bare bone budgets and staffs until the economy rights itself.

7. Revamp the tax policy so that everybody from the poorest to the richest shares proportionately and equitably in the burden and begin a slow and careful process of reducing and eventually limiting all forms of federal charity.

//////////

1. Tax credits were signed into law and became effective April 1, 2009. Here's a synopsis.

Individuals

$300 one-time cash payment to: Seniors, disabled people, and veterans.
$500 tax cut per invididual (for two years)
$1000 tax cut per couple (for two years)
$1000 tax cut per child–if you count as the working poor

$2,500 tax credit for college tuition
$7,500 tax credit for middle-class first-time homebuyers who buy by mid-2009

No taxes on unemployment benefits (a temporary suspension)

Businesses
Companies in the red can claim tax credits on profits of up to five years ago
Businesses buying plants and equipment get bonus depreciation
Small businesses can double the amount they’re allowed to write off for new equipment and capital investments

Energy
More tax credits for energy-efficient homes
$31 billion total tax credits for companies who increase production of renewable energy and boost their energy efficiency

In addition, he proposes further relief on capital gains tax:

Obama proposes no capital gains tax on qualified small business stock : Startup Company Lawyer

And more:
House Democrats Propose Tax-Cut Extensions - WSJ.com

There has been no decision yet whether to extend the Bush tax cuts. It will all depend on the state of the economy at the time they expire. But those cuts ALSO resulted in a dramatic reduction in revenue, which added to Bush's deficit problems. So therein lies the conundrum..

He has said the Bush tax cuts will not be extended. And without getting so technical we bore everybody to death here, I will simply say that one time or two-year 'gifts' or 'rebates' or 'bribes' do little or nothing to stimulate the economy and do absolutely nothing to allow people to plan ahead for major investments or purchases and/or for business to move ahead with confidence on much of anything.

The principle I am citing is how the private sector is encouraged to heal its own economy. The principle you point to is manipulative, restrictive, and ineffective as a major economic stimulus.

2. No. Exactly what "regulations" are so offensive to private enterprise, and if so, why didn't they complain before the Obama administration took over?

This is a topic best addressed in a separate thread, but their numbers are legion. Almost all business owners dealing in physical products or doing business in more than a local market feels over taxed and over regulated and they have been complaining about it for decades now. Just as one example, complying with EPA restrictions for certain expansions and projects can delay these for years and add such exhorbitant costs that the whole idea, along with the productivity and jobs it would have produced, are scrapped or put on the back burner for practically forever.

3. I'm guessing conservatives will get their wish on health care, and the subject will, again, just be allowed to fade away. There will be NOTHING, no Dem plan will get a single vote from Republicans, and any "good" stuff conservatives suddenly are willing to offer up when they are no longer in power won't happen either.

That does not change the fact that if the Obama administration would assure private enterprise now that they will not have to deal with such crushing and expensive new legislation, they could at least breathe easier while planning to move ahead.

4. Ditto. Cap & Trade will not pass, which is not to say that a renewable energy plan in general will not. Just that particular requirement.

Also, until the administration assures private enterprise that Cap & Trade will not happen, private enterprise will not take risks that will become excessively costly or non productive should the Administration be able to get this hair brained deal passed.

5. Regarding homeowner assistance, this also has already been done, and of course has been highly criticized. The Q&A details can be found here:

Obama Administration's Home Mortgage Crisis Fact Sheet - washingtonpost.com

and the home buyer's tax credit was just extended:

Obama Signs Homebuyer Tax Credit Extension | RISMedia

Again you are confusing government holding the reins and manipulating the process with what I am proposing by government getting out of the way and letting the American free enterprise system work. You don't do that by funneling more and more giveaways and gifts to a select few and leave those who are actually in a position to spur economic growth and create jobs out in the cold.

6. That's already a possibility, but highly doubtful. I seem to remember the 1994 showdown between Gingrich and Clinton over something similar, and Gingrich soon realized a spending freeze would cripple government.

Obama eyes domestic spending freeze - White House- msnbc.com

I did not even suggest a total spending freeze. I suggested government not spending money it was not obligated to spend and/or did not absolutely have to spend. There is a big difference between that a a total spending freeze.

7. Regarding overhaul of the Tax Code, could we please wait a little longer than one year into office before Barack Obama tackles THAT daunting problem, which has also been tabled decade after decade? Check back with me sometime next summer, and perhaps it will become the hot topic du jour. But it makes no sense to take on something that stupendous at this point in time.

[/QUOTE]

The whole problem with Barack Obama is his propensity to drag his feet on making decisions about things he could propose right now to make things better--'thinking' about it is not helpful, while at the same time he is trying to rush to ram through legislation that most Americans do not want and that will most likely not accomplish what is advertised and will do a great deal of harm.

Why not work on taxes and regulations now that need to be reviewed and just 'think' about dismantling the U.S. healthcare system and imposing a crushing Cap and Trade policy on U.S. business sometime far off in the future?

 

[Harry Dresden]

Public jobs come at the expense of productive private sector jobs.

but you said..."The government can't create jobs.".....did not the US Govt establish the USPS...as per what the Constitution says....and create the Jobs within and hire accordingly?.....the PO has been around in primitive forms since the 1630's....and in 1775 the PO was established.....and people were hired to do the JOBS required to get the mail delivered....

And those jobs came at the expense of the private market, which means that real wealth producing jobs that would have been created by the market were not created.

Kevin.....i dont care at whose expense the jobs came from......YOU made a statement...."The government can't create jobs.".....when in fact it has,millions of them....if you want to convey a different meaning to this,i suggest maybe wording it somewhat different might help....and lets not forget that the Constitution says the GOVT. has the job of creating a postal service for the people.....

 

[garyd]

Maggie this government is going to cut defense as soon as it possible can on top of which Europe is the classic example of the simple fact that you can't have both a projectable military force and large scale centralized economic decison making. No matter what you do there isn't enough money. If we continue on the path Obama and company have laid out for us we will be looking at decades of low to know job growth high unemployment especially among the youngest workers and a pretty much stagnant economy.

The only even marginally good thing to come out of this will be that our strong economy will no longer seve as an attractive nuisance and those who do not live hear now will have no reason to come hear ever.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

but you said..."The government can't create jobs.".....did not the US Govt establish the USPS...as per what the Constitution says....and create the Jobs within and hire accordingly?.....the PO has been around in primitive forms since the 1630's....and in 1775 the PO was established.....and people were hired to do the JOBS required to get the mail delivered....

And those jobs came at the expense of the private market, which means that real wealth producing jobs that would have been created by the market were not created.

Kevin.....i dont care at whose expense the jobs came from......YOU made a statement...."The government can't create jobs.".....when in fact it has,millions of them....if you want to convey a different meaning to this,i suggest maybe wording it somewhat different might help....and lets not forget that the Constitution says the GOVT. has the job of creating a postal service for the people.....

The Constitution doesn't change the laws of economics. As for what was said and meant, I believe it's clear what was meant. Government created jobs do not add to the economy, but detract from it. Therefore, the government cannot create "real" jobs.

 

[Harry Dresden]

And those jobs came at the expense of the private market, which means that real wealth producing jobs that would have been created by the market were not created.

Kevin.....i dont care at whose expense the jobs came from......YOU made a statement...."The government can't create jobs.".....when in fact it has,millions of them....if you want to convey a different meaning to this,i suggest maybe wording it somewhat different might help....and lets not forget that the Constitution says the GOVT. has the job of creating a postal service for the people.....

The Constitution doesn't change the laws of economics. As for what was said and meant, I believe it's clear what was meant. Government created jobs do not add to the economy, but detract from it. Therefore, the government cannot create "real" jobs.

so i guess when i was getting my ass soaked delivering the mail today,i was not really working,because i was not doing a "real" job....and i guess when i get paid and spend the money,im not contributing to the economy.....

 

[Liability]

Kevin.....i dont care at whose expense the jobs came from......YOU made a statement...."The government can't create jobs.".....when in fact it has,millions of them....if you want to convey a different meaning to this,i suggest maybe wording it somewhat different might help....and lets not forget that the Constitution says the GOVT. has the job of creating a postal service for the people.....

The Constitution doesn't change the laws of economics. As for what was said and meant, I believe it's clear what was meant. Government created jobs do not add to the economy, but detract from it. Therefore, the government cannot create "real" jobs.

so i guess when i was getting my ass soaked delivering the mail today,i was not really working,because i was not doing a "real" job....and i guess when i get paid and spend the money,im not contributing to the economy.....

When you get your ass soaked delivering mail, you are merely proving that postal workers should wear uniforms and rain coats when it rains.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Kevin.....i dont care at whose expense the jobs came from......YOU made a statement...."The government can't create jobs.".....when in fact it has,millions of them....if you want to convey a different meaning to this,i suggest maybe wording it somewhat different might help....and lets not forget that the Constitution says the GOVT. has the job of creating a postal service for the people.....

The Constitution doesn't change the laws of economics. As for what was said and meant, I believe it's clear what was meant. Government created jobs do not add to the economy, but detract from it. Therefore, the government cannot create "real" jobs.

so i guess when i was getting my ass soaked delivering the mail today,i was not really working,because i was not doing a "real" job....and i guess when i get paid and spend the money,im not contributing to the economy.....

Nobody is saying you don't work hard or you don't have a hard job, I know for a fact delivering mail is a difficult job. But it doesn't change the way an economy works. Wealth is generated by the private sector, whereas government must take wealth out of the private sector to fund its jobs. This detracts from the economy.

 

[Foxfyre]

Kevin.....i dont care at whose expense the jobs came from......YOU made a statement...."The government can't create jobs.".....when in fact it has,millions of them....if you want to convey a different meaning to this,i suggest maybe wording it somewhat different might help....and lets not forget that the Constitution says the GOVT. has the job of creating a postal service for the people.....

The Constitution doesn't change the laws of economics. As for what was said and meant, I believe it's clear what was meant. Government created jobs do not add to the economy, but detract from it. Therefore, the government cannot create "real" jobs.

so i guess when i was getting my ass soaked delivering the mail today,i was not really working,because i was not doing a "real" job....and i guess when i get paid and spend the money,im not contributing to the economy.....

You are earning your wages and you should be proud of that. And you are providing an essential service to the people in your community. You should be proud of that too.

But while you should not hang your head because of it, your wages do not contribute to the national wealth but rather are a drain on it. Your wages might be justified because you provide an essential service that contributes to the general welfare, but many hundreds of thousands of government workers can make no such claim. And there is the question of whether your job must be a government job or whether it could be performed just as effectively by the private sector. And, though it was less convenient, I have lived in places where there was no door to door delivery and everybody had to drive to the post office or bank of community mail boxes to pick up their mail. A whole lot fewer folks are needed to handle the mail in a district like that.

What seems to be so difficult to recognize these days is the difference between that which contributes to the general welfare, and that which does not.

General welfare: that which benefits all alike regardless of their socioeconomic or political standing.

 

[saveliberty]

I wouldn't object to a higher rate for business mail. Seems like the bulk of my mail is unsolicited business mailings. Since the government is charging more because of costs, why do I have to pay more for junk mail?

 

[SFC Ollie]

Flat out, the Government cannot create permanent jobs in the private sector by spending us into oblivion. Of course there are some Federal Jobs that the Government is to create according to the constitution.

 

[MaggieMae]

Okay, pick up your smock for McDonalds in the morning MaggieMae.

I prefer Burger King myself. Worked there during lean times in the 80's and also cleaned houses for extra income.

Things I like about maggieMae's post:

A. Flame broiled rocks. Go MaggieMae.
B. Cleaning a house is noble work when done right. Good honest labor.
C. You have a sense of humor. Good job.

A job is a job is a job really isn't exactly true is it? Though any job is better than none. I assume that was your main point.

Yup. I was actually between states (quit CA living and headed to the Northeast Kingdom), and while I was interviewing for similar work, the rent had to be paid. So yes, a job is a job. Any job.

 

[MaggieMae]

Your general incoherence is showing again, Maggot.

The reality is, I was just making a joke. Like most everything else in the adult world, that too sailed waaay over your pin head.

The Obama Administration has not "created" any fucking jobs. It hasn't "saved" any jobs either. And my job is not depenedent-- one way or the other -- on the Obama Administration's efforts to socialize our economy even further.

Newsflash for you and other libtarded liberoidal lemmings: many of us already realize that we are fortunate. We are fortunate to live in America. The current unfortunate circumstances is that the foundation which MADE America a free and prosperous land is being deliberately undermined by the stupid policies of the moron we elected President and the fools in Congress who share his idiotic political inclinations.

I got the "joke" funnyman. The fact that you were making it a "joke" is what really was funny. A job is a job is a job is a job is a job.

Classic. One idiotic Maggot post on the heels of a prior idiotic Maggot post.

Yes, mutt. A job IS a job IS a job. It's funny that YOU of all people think you can determine what is or isn't funny.

In any event, as always, you miss the point, Maggot.

Seems to me you made two points, both of which I got: The first that the OA hasn't created nor saved any jobs (not true), and the other that you're a comedian. But I'd hold onto that day job you seem to covet. Calling me a "maggot" might go over big in a second-grade classroom but doesn't strike me as hilarious on an adult message board.

 

[Liability]

I got the "joke" funnyman. The fact that you were making it a "joke" is what really was funny. A job is a job is a job is a job is a job.

Classic. One idiotic Maggot post on the heels of a prior idiotic Maggot post.

Yes, mutt. A job IS a job IS a job. It's funny that YOU of all people think you can determine what is or isn't funny.

In any event, as always, you miss the point, Maggot.

Seems to me you made two points, both of which I got: The first that the OA hasn't created nor saved any jobs (not true),

It is your denial which is untrue.

and the other that you're a comedian. But I'd hold onto that day job you seem to covet. Calling me a "maggot" might go over big in a second-grade classroom but doesn't strike me as hilarious on an adult message board.

Not surprisingly, the "second" thing you derived is (as usual with you) quite wrong. I am not a comedian. Whether or not I am occasionally amusing or funny is a matter of opinion and taste. I recognize that you have no basis upon which to pass such judgments, and that's fine, Maggot. I remain indifferent to your opinions on almost everything!

Oh crap. Your school-marmish effort to correct my manner of communicating with you appears to have flatly failed. Oh well!

 

[Foxfyre]

I prefer Burger King myself. Worked there during lean times in the 80's and also cleaned houses for extra income.

Things I like about maggieMae's post:

A. Flame broiled rocks. Go MaggieMae.
B. Cleaning a house is noble work when done right. Good honest labor.
C. You have a sense of humor. Good job.

A job is a job is a job really isn't exactly true is it? Though any job is better than none. I assume that was your main point.

Yup. I was actually between states (quit CA living and headed to the Northeast Kingdom), and while I was interviewing for similar work, the rent had to be paid. So yes, a job is a job. Any job.

So long as wages are paid for honest work, I agree that a job is a job, and there is no shame. The worst job I ever had was telephone marketer trying to sell magazines for awhile. It was the only job available that month. I have worked more than a few jobs at minimum wage--some I loved, some I didn't--and I have had jobs that paid great wages--some I loved, some I didn't.

But working for what one gets is a great virtue to live by.

 

[MaggieMae]

Maggie this government is going to cut defense as soon as it possible can on top of which Europe is the classic example of the simple fact that you can't have both a projectable military force and large scale centralized economic decison making. No matter what you do there isn't enough money. If we continue on the path Obama and company have laid out for us we will be looking at decades of low to know job growth high unemployment especially among the youngest workers and a pretty much stagnant economy.

The only even marginally good thing to come out of this will be that our strong economy will no longer seve as an attractive nuisance and those who do not live hear now will have no reason to come hear ever.

No there isn't. But it's high time priorities were sorted out. I'd love nothing more than to see ANY administration cut the entire budget to bare bones and literally start from scratch. But while that's happening, too many people would suffer in addition to the ones already suffering. How, for instance, would massive layoffs within the federal government be paid for? All those people would need to go on the myriad social 'welfare' programs, which are funded by the federal government. Catch-22.

When any of you figure out how to do the massive "changes" you think are necessary, in a short timeframe, you'll have my attention. In the meantime, all we (they) can do is chip away at the debt problem. Sure, the Democrats could drop the health care initiative (which I've now come to believe is a fucking waste of time because Republicans won't vote for it in the end no matter WHAT kind of amendments they propose actually get included), but that means more people will fall between the cracks and, again, look toward existing government social networks in order to survive.

 

[MaggieMae]

Kevin.....i dont care at whose expense the jobs came from......YOU made a statement...."The government can't create jobs.".....when in fact it has,millions of them....if you want to convey a different meaning to this,i suggest maybe wording it somewhat different might help....and lets not forget that the Constitution says the GOVT. has the job of creating a postal service for the people.....

The Constitution doesn't change the laws of economics. As for what was said and meant, I believe it's clear what was meant. Government created jobs do not add to the economy, but detract from it. Therefore, the government cannot create "real" jobs.

so i guess when i was getting my ass soaked delivering the mail today,i was not really working,because i was not doing a "real" job....and i guess when i get paid and spend the money,im not contributing to the economy.....

Forget it, Harry. Kevin is an ideologue of the worst kind. He will stand his ground even as his principles get sucked up by the giant hole of reality.

 

[MaggieMae]

I'd really like to know what alternate universe Kevin, Foxfyre, and Ollie live in. This would not be the most envied country on earth if it weren't for the HUGE national programs that sparked private industries into becoming equally as HUGE profit makers. Apparently they feel that Fast Eddie, Joe Blow, and Mary Wary could have pooled their intelligence, and with no startup money, created an investment pool in the billions and built the interstate highway system. Or created the science and technology from somewhere else other than space endeavors which provided hundreds of clues, and the tools, now required in advanced medicine and other technologies commonly in use by the public at large.

 

[MaggieMae]

Classic. One idiotic Maggot post on the heels of a prior idiotic Maggot post.

Yes, mutt. A job IS a job IS a job. It's funny that YOU of all people think you can determine what is or isn't funny.

In any event, as always, you miss the point, Maggot.

Seems to me you made two points, both of which I got: The first that the OA hasn't created nor saved any jobs (not true),

It is your denial which is untrue.

and the other that you're a comedian. But I'd hold onto that day job you seem to covet. Calling me a "maggot" might go over big in a second-grade classroom but doesn't strike me as hilarious on an adult message board.

Not surprisingly, the "second" thing you derived is (as usual with you) quite wrong. I am not a comedian. Whether or not I am occasionally amusing or funny is a matter of opinion and taste. I recognize that you have no basis upon which to pass such judgments, and that's fine, Maggot. I remain indifferent to your opinions on almost everything!

Oh crap. Your school-marmish effort to correct my manner of communicating with you appears to have flatly failed. Oh well!

I see, and that's why you're so prompt with yet another retort. Gotcha.