What about the Proposed Jobs Bill do Repubs not like?

[thereisnospoon]

Hire teachers? We hired new classroom aides, hired people to do paving projects, increased the size and workforce of our Community Health Center and re-hired a couple laid off police officers in my town.

Road crews are temporary jobs. Teachers aide are temporatry jobs.

In what universe are teacher aides temporary jobs?

If your town couldn't afford police before, why hire them back just to have to fire them again when the money runs out?

We didn't have to fire them. The economy in our town improved over the course of the past year and tax revenues in the town have increased.

Everywhere.
As a matter of fact, our local school district has eliminated teacher's aides. The Board saw them as an unnecessary expense.
Teachers have a lot to do, for sure. Lesson planning, grading tests, meeting...oh the endless parade of meetings. Truth is according to the teachers I know, most of the meetings are due to stuff the educrats in the State Capitol have mandated. Ridiculous nonsense( their words) that keeps them from doing their real jobs. Teaching!
One of them told me last weekend that there would be no reason to have an aide if they didn't have all the extraneous crap they have to do. BTW, they teach in a neighboring county.
Oh..Many of the municipal jobs "saved" by the stimulus, have ended because the money ran out.
The stimulus money would have been acceptable to the public had the money gone to private sector companies looking to hire permanent workers.
Not one dime of the "porkulus" went to the private sector. Stupid idea in practice. Should never have been done and never again.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Positive rep coming your way!

 

[8537]

Road crews are temporary jobs. Teachers aide are temporatry jobs.

In what universe are teacher aides temporary jobs?

If your town couldn't afford police before, why hire them back just to have to fire them again when the money runs out?

We didn't have to fire them. The economy in our town improved over the course of the past year and tax revenues in the town have increased.

Everywhere.
As a matter of fact, our local school district has eliminated teacher's aides. The Board saw them as an unnecessary expense.

Well, in my area they are permanent unionized employees. Perhaps that's why we have some of the best schools in the nation. So, not "everywhere".

 

[thereisnospoon]

In what universe are teacher aides temporary jobs?



We didn't have to fire them. The economy in our town improved over the course of the past year and tax revenues in the town have increased.

Everywhere.
As a matter of fact, our local school district has eliminated teacher's aides. The Board saw them as an unnecessary expense.

Well, in my area they are permanent unionized employees. Perhaps that's why we have some of the best schools in the nation. So, not "everywhere".

Oh please. Are you actually going to try to convince us that a unionized teacher's aide makes your local district one of the better ones in the nation?
First of all you cannot prove that to be true. Second you have nothing which to compare to make that claim.

 

[8537]

Everywhere.
As a matter of fact, our local school district has eliminated teacher's aides. The Board saw them as an unnecessary expense.

Well, in my area they are permanent unionized employees. Perhaps that's why we have some of the best schools in the nation. So, not "everywhere".

Oh please. Are you actually going to try to convince us that a unionized teacher's aide makes your local district one of the better ones in the nation?
First of all you cannot prove that to be true. Second you have nothing which to compare to make that claim.

No, I'm saying that:

A) you were wrong when you said that teachers aides are temporary jobs everywhere.

B) we have full-time permanent teachers aides and some of the best schools in the country.

C) we were able to preserve those aids thanks to stimulus money and as our local economy improved we were able to keep them when ARRA funds began dwindling.

 

[Zander]

I'm just wondering what the objections are to the dems proposed Jobs bill? It's deficit neutral and seems to be designed to make an impact immediately.

Jobs Bill Overview

So, I was wondering which parts, specifically, those who are against it have the biggest issue with.

The part where it doesn't work. I'm opposed to stupidity. I'm stubborn like that.....

 

[Dragon]

The part where it doesn't work.

This kind of thing has been repeated ad nauseam throughout this thread. It's amazing. No matter how many times solid proof is presented that the first stimulus DID, in fact, work, it still keeps being repeated.

I have an objection of my own to Obama's proposal, and it's the same objection I had to the first stimulus: It's too small. It's not enough. It will work, just as the first stimulus did, but it won't work well enough -- ditto -- and for the same reason. (The first stimulus was designed to create some 2-3 million jobs when we needed 10-12 million. It worked exactly as designed.)

If you want a clear idea of what kind of stimulus spending will actually revive the economy when it's in a depression like this, and what kind of stimulus spending will just have the motor cough and rumble a little without generating a sustained start, go back to the last depression we had.

Inadequate stimulus = FDR's tepid spending on work-relief and similar programs.

Adequate stimulus = what was spent to fight World War II.

Apply the lesson forward.

 

[thereisnospoon]

I'm just wondering what the objections are to the dems proposed Jobs bill? It's deficit neutral and seems to be designed to make an impact immediately.

Jobs Bill Overview

So, I was wondering which parts, specifically, those who are against it have the biggest issue with.

It's the same damn bill that he passed last time, the 787 billion dollar one, remember? that has not created any jobs in the private sector, that's what we don't like. It's doubling down on stupid.

The private sector has been adding jobs for a year and a half now, adding about 2.7M jobs.

I don;t see a link..However, for the moment, let us stipulate.
Now, a link which goes to define what a "job" is.
Because here we see an opportunity for those interested in seeing this President receive another four year term. As such, those numbers can be skewed in ways so as to put the President's policies in a good light.
So....Two things. Show a link indicating those private sector job numbers. And a link that clearly defines exactly what a job is.
Failing that definition, just about any employment no matter how brief or whatever could and probably is for statistical purposes labeled as a "job".
As far as I am concerned a job is a full time hired or contract position with an open ended term. Part time permanent would be at least 25 hours per week and of course that would fall under the category of a "job".

 

[8537]

It's the same damn bill that he passed last time, the 787 billion dollar one, remember? that has not created any jobs in the private sector, that's what we don't like. It's doubling down on stupid.

The private sector has been adding jobs for a year and a half now, adding about 2.7M jobs.

I don;t see a link..

More than one has already been provided.

However, for the moment, let us stipulate.
Now, a link which goes to define what a "job" is.
Because here we see an opportunity for those interested in seeing this President receive another four year term. As such, those numbers can be skewed in ways so as to put the President's policies in a good light.

You should take this up with the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The definitions have not changed.

 

[OODA_Loop]

I have an objection of my own to Obama's proposal, and it's the same objection I had to the first stimulus: It's too small. It's not enough.

right, its not like we don't have a printer, paper and ink

 

[thereisnospoon]

The private sector has been adding jobs for a year and a half now, adding about 2.7M jobs.

I don;t see a link..

More than one has already been provided.

However, for the moment, let us stipulate.
Now, a link which goes to define what a "job" is.
Because here we see an opportunity for those interested in seeing this President receive another four year term. As such, those numbers can be skewed in ways so as to put the President's policies in a good light.

You should take this up with the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The definitions have not changed.

You should know better. When YOU are asked a question an answer is expected from YOU.
Now, once more. Define "job".
Don't chop up my quotes for your own purposes.
I posted what I believe to be the definition of a job. I served it up there. You can whiff or knock it out of the park. Right now, I'm sensing quite a breeze.
And don't give this nonsense of "bi-partisan"....Each department is ( Dept of Labor for example) Is headed by a bureaucrat who serves at the pleasure of the President.
Therefore it is highly likely that the Secretary of Labor can and does lean on the Bureau of Labor to skew their statistics to make the President's positions look favorable.
So, don't try that "take it up with". I asked YOU the question. Be a stand up guy and answer .

 

[thereisnospoon]

Quote: Originally Posted by Dragon
I have an objection of my own to Obama's proposal, and it's the same objection I had to the first stimulus: It's too small. It's not enough.
Umm...We just got fleeced for almost one trillion dollars on two other stimulus.
Obama promised this would keep the unemployment rate under 8%. He promised the stimulus would "put people back to work". I understood that to be PERMANENT jobs.
Obama also claimed the money would be used for "shovel ready projects".
And now you claim the latest porkulus is not enough?!!!!
Newsflash....the definition of insanity is repeating the same actions over and over with the expectation of a different result..Ironically, that also is a fixture of liberalism.

 

[thereisnospoon]

The part where it doesn't work.

This kind of thing has been repeated ad nauseam throughout this thread. It's amazing. No matter how many times solid proof is presented that the first stimulus DID, in fact, work, it still keeps being repeated.

I have an objection of my own to Obama's proposal, and it's the same objection I had to the first stimulus: It's too small. It's not enough. It will work, just as the first stimulus did, but it won't work well enough -- ditto -- and for the same reason. (The first stimulus was designed to create some 2-3 million jobs when we needed 10-12 million. It worked exactly as designed.)

If you want a clear idea of what kind of stimulus spending will actually revive the economy when it's in a depression like this, and what kind of stimulus spending will just have the motor cough and rumble a little without generating a sustained start, go back to the last depression we had.

Inadequate stimulus = FDR's tepid spending on work-relief and similar programs.

Adequate stimulus = what was spent to fight World War II.

Apply the lesson forward.

If it worked, the unemployment rate would have fallen. The economy would be growing ( last Q that rate was UNDER 1%) there would not be piss poor consumer confidence ratings.
You lefties can carry the water for Barry all you like. Doesn't change the facts.
FACT....Government CANNOT spend and tax itself into prosperity.
That has never happened. And it never will.
The federal government cannot continue to spend money we do not have.
The Federal Reserve cannot continue to print money to cover fiscal irresponsibility.
If you think that buying government jobs is a good idea, write a check. Leave the rest of us out of your schemes.

 

[Zander]

If only we were more in debt.......then the economy would really take off!!


See how stupid that sounds? That is what Obama and his cronies want.

 

[The Rabbi]

If only we were more in debt.......then the economy would really take off!!


See how stupid that sounds? That is what Obama and his cronies want.

They operate from a failed base of knowledge. This is the issue. His supporters equally are misinformed. If someone presented you a scenario where the unemployment rate was 7+% and the gov't did something and unemployment went to over 9% most reasonable people would understand the policy was a failure. Why that isnt' the case here I can only attribute to partisan stupidity.

 

[Zander]

If only we were more in debt.......then the economy would really take off!!


See how stupid that sounds? That is what Obama and his cronies want.

They operate from a failed base of knowledge. This is the issue. His supporters equally are misinformed. If someone presented you a scenario where the unemployment rate was 7+% and the gov't did something and unemployment went to over 9% most reasonable people would understand the policy was a failure. Why that isnt' the case here I can only attribute to partisan stupidity.

For a liberal/progressive/commie/pinko/loser/socialist/1%er the only solution is to change the way these things are measured....ergo Obama SAVED a BILLION JOBS!!!

 

[The Rabbi]

If only we were more in debt.......then the economy would really take off!!


See how stupid that sounds? That is what Obama and his cronies want.

They operate from a failed base of knowledge. This is the issue. His supporters equally are misinformed. If someone presented you a scenario where the unemployment rate was 7+% and the gov't did something and unemployment went to over 9% most reasonable people would understand the policy was a failure. Why that isnt' the case here I can only attribute to partisan stupidity.

For a liberal/progressive/commie/pinko/loser/socialist/1%er the only solution is to change the way these things are measured....ergo Obama SAVED a BILLION JOBS!!!

Every time a program fails miserably its supporters scream, It could have been worse! That's what we're hearing from the Left on this one. That is of course, as unknowable as saying "it would have been better if we hadn't done the program." Actually in this case there is empirical evidence that not passing the stimulus would have produced more jobs.

 

[Maple]

I'm just wondering what the objections are to the dems proposed Jobs bill? It's deficit neutral and seems to be designed to make an impact immediately.

Jobs Bill Overview

So, I was wondering which parts, specifically, those who are against it have the biggest issue with.

It's called doubling down on "stupid," it's the same damn bill that we already spent 787 billion on that cost $278,000 per job created or " saved", that's what's wrong with it. No jobs created, it was a total and complete failure and the only thing it increased was our national debt which we, our children and grandchildren are going to get to pay for.

 

[Maple]

If only we were more in debt.......then the economy would really take off!!


See how stupid that sounds? That is what Obama and his cronies want.

Oh, and don't forget " We have to spend money in order to save it." I think that was Stimulus one. Make any sense to you?? It never did me either and obviously they were flat dead ass wrong on that number, because here we are holding another trillion dollars in debt and still very few got any benefit from that. Obama, " I guess those shovel ready jobs weren't so shovel ready." No kiddin Sherlock, what an economic moron this dud is.

 

[Maple]

If only we were more in debt.......then the economy would really take off!!


See how stupid that sounds? That is what Obama and his cronies want.

They operate from a failed base of knowledge. This is the issue. His supporters equally are misinformed. If someone presented you a scenario where the unemployment rate was 7+% and the gov't did something and unemployment went to over 9% most reasonable people would understand the policy was a failure. Why that isnt' the case here I can only attribute to partisan stupidity.

Stupid is dead on right, moronic is more descriptive of their stupidity.

Definition of insanity " doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome." That defines Obama and his administration to a tee. FAILURE.