Obama General Discussion, vol. 3 - Page 15 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 07-09-2011, 03:05 PM   #211
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 06:44 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
clearly, we needed more stimulus in light of today's job's report.

much more.

jobs > deficits.

but, of course, unemployment hurts Obama, and the only thing that matters is harming him so the GOP has a shot at the presidency in 2012.
We need more private sector jobs that expand the tax base and increase tax revenues not more public sector or make-work jobs that cost $250,000 per job and evaporate as soon as the out-of-control-spending "stimulus" dries up.
__________________

__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 07-09-2011, 04:20 PM   #212
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,473
Local Time: 07:44 AM
Agreed with you on the need for more revenue.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 07-09-2011, 04:59 PM   #213
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
mobvok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: boom clap
Posts: 4,428
Local Time: 04:44 AM


Fun fact: public sector jobs don't pay money, nor contribute any in taxes
__________________
mobvok is offline  
Old 07-11-2011, 10:59 PM   #214
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 06:44 AM
????
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 07-12-2011, 08:23 PM   #215
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
mobvok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: boom clap
Posts: 4,428
Local Time: 04:44 AM
well that's a picture of government employment over the last few years. Obama's overseen a sizable shrink in the public sector. Socialism!

(the spike, btw, is temporary census hiring)

Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
We need more private sector jobs that expand the tax base and increase tax revenues not more public sector or make-work jobs that cost $250,000 per job and evaporate as soon as the out-of-control-spending "stimulus" dries up.
Now it appears to me that public sector jobs would also employ people that would in turn expand the tax base and revenues throughout the economy as they buy things and help create demand for business products, but its possible this statement is a general qualitative preference for private over public jobs in which case that is certainly your right to say. But as seen above it's been solely private sector job growth that's been propping up the topline job numbers as the public sector's been shrinking so you're aspiring to a shfit that's already happening under Obama.

Also, if you're dividing the stimulus price tag by a jobs created estimate to get that $250,000 just keep in mind that one of the single largest expenses was simply helping state budgets and the social safety net through programs like Medicaid or Unemployment Insurance so people have food on their tables for the next year or so. Beneficial! But not a direct "jobs program".

Finally, wouldn't the stimulus "drying up" by definition contradict your snarky "out of control spending" quip? Why did it dry up? Medicare cost growth for example is certainly out of control as there's no projected restraint in the long term future, but this is just throwing epithets against the wall to see what sticks.
__________________
mobvok is offline  
Old 07-12-2011, 11:28 PM   #216
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 06:44 AM
"Social Security is a program that works... it's fully funded for the next 40 years."
Sen Majority Leader Harry Reid, Meet The Press Jan 2011

"I cannot guarantee that those checks (Social Security) go out on August 3rd if we haven't resolved this issue. Because there may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it."
President Obama. CBS Evening News July 2011

Indy needs some help here, which is it?
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 07-12-2011, 11:45 PM   #217
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,473
Local Time: 07:44 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post

Indy needs some help here, which is it?


depends on the Republicans and how much they are going to continue to try and prevent an economic recovery.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 07-12-2011, 11:57 PM   #218
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 06:44 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mobvok View Post
Now it appears to me that public sector jobs would also employ people that would in turn expand the tax base and revenues throughout the economy as they buy things and help create demand for business products, but its possible this statement is a general qualitative preference for private over public jobs in which case that is certainly your right to say. But as seen above it's been solely private sector job growth that's been propping up the topline job numbers as the public sector's been shrinking so you're aspiring to a shfit that's already happening under Obama.
Depending on the numbers it takes roughly 18 private jobs to fund a federal employee's wages and benefits.


Quote:
Also, if you're dividing the stimulus price tag by a jobs created estimate to get that $250,000 just keep in mind that one of the single largest expenses was simply helping state budgets and the social safety net through programs like Medicaid or Unemployment Insurance so people have food on their tables for the next year or so. Beneficial! But not a direct "jobs program".
The numbers are from the White House’s Council of Economic Advisors.

The “stimulus” has added or saved just under 2.4 million jobs — whether private or public — at a cost (to date) of $666 billion.

$278,000 per job. And that's accepting the added or saved # to be accurate. I think it dubious myself.

Quote:
Finally, wouldn't the stimulus "drying up" by definition contradict your snarky "out of control spending" quip? Why did it dry up? Medicare cost growth for example is certainly out of control as there's no projected restraint in the long term future, but this is just throwing epithets against the wall to see what sticks.
By definition isn't "stimulus" money an investment in the future which should show benefit well after the money faucet gets turned off? Well after "Recovery Summer"?
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 07-13-2011, 12:16 AM   #219
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
mobvok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: boom clap
Posts: 4,428
Local Time: 04:44 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
"Social Security is a program that works... it's fully funded for the next 40 years."
Sen Majority Leader Harry Reid, Meet The Press Jan 2011

"I cannot guarantee that those checks (Social Security) go out on August 3rd if we haven't resolved this issue. Because there may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it."
President Obama. CBS Evening News July 2011

Indy needs some help here, which is it?
edit OH I see what you're talking about

Harry Reid's talking narrowly in terms of whether more revenue is earmarked to pay for SS than its giving out, while Obama's taking a holistic view. They're both valid perspectives, because while SS has enough specific income to pay for it into the near future, in total when the government can only pay 70% of its bills there must be some sort of prioritization. Money that would otherwise have gone to SS recipients might have to pay off the overall debt interest and bondholders. Or it may not. That's the uncertainty of the issue.
__________________
mobvok is offline  
Old 07-13-2011, 12:42 AM   #220
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
mobvok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: boom clap
Posts: 4,428
Local Time: 04:44 AM
Quote:
Depending on the numbers it takes roughly 18 private jobs to fund a federal employee's wages and benefits.
That's the mother of all caveats. It would probably take quite a few minimum wage workers to equal a US Senator's salary. It would also take a fraction of a single Goldman Sach's executive's salary.

Quote:
$278,000 per job. And that's accepting the added or saved # to be accurate. I think it dubious myself.
$260 billion of the 660 distributed so far is in tax credits, like this:

Quote:
Tax Incentives for Businesses
$33.4B
The Work Opportunity Tax Credit added unemployed veterans and 16-to-24 year olds to the list of new hires that businesses could claim. The Net Operating Loss Carryback allows small businesses to offset losses by receiving refunds on taxes paid up to five years ago.
What a waste.

213 billion has been in contracts, grants, and loans. That's the direct stuff, like 29 billion on building highway infrastructure or 16 billion in federal student aid.

Why don't these students have jobs? Higher education: more waste that's not remotely any sort of an investment in the future.

What about the 24 billion spent on extending food stamp programs? They may not be dead, but they're certainly a dead weight on the economy. Way 2 go Obama.

If only we had saved all this money to pay down our debt in order to get the bond market off our back

__________________
mobvok is offline  
Old 07-13-2011, 01:20 AM   #221
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
mobvok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: boom clap
Posts: 4,428
Local Time: 04:44 AM
This is kind of peripheral, but an interesting fact I didn't know about Social Security:

Link
Quote:
Kessler also gets wrong the baseline for the projected longer-term shortfall for Social Security. After 2036 the program is projected to only have enough money to pay a bit less than 80 percent of scheduled benefits. However, if the law is never changed, then the program would only pay the benefits that could be financed through incoming Social Security tax revenue. The general fund would not be tapped to cover the shortfall.

Of course Congress could change the law, but budget debates usually start from the law as written, not as some individual might imagine it will be changed in the future. In this sense, it is 100 percent accurate to say that Social Security does not now nor will it in the future contribute to the deficit. Congress could change the law so at some point it does contribute to the deficit, but that is just a guessing game, not the current reality.
__________________
mobvok is offline  
Old 07-13-2011, 10:29 AM   #222
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,974
Local Time: 07:44 AM
Jeez..whatever happened to "my dog is smarter than your honor student"?

__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 07-13-2011, 10:59 PM   #223
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 06:44 AM
How embarrassing. I totally forgot to hyphenate hard-on. I'll have to go out to the camper and fix that.
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 07-14-2011, 02:01 AM   #224
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Canadiens1131's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 10,363
Local Time: 08:44 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
"Social Security is a program that works... it's fully funded for the next 40 years."
Sen Majority Leader Harry Reid, Meet The Press Jan 2011

"I cannot guarantee that those checks (Social Security) go out on August 3rd if we haven't resolved this issue. Because there may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it."
President Obama. CBS Evening News July 2011

Indy needs some help here, which is it?
Reid is referring to the debate about the long-term solvency of Social Security.

Obama is referring to the government having to make the choice of who gets paid if the debt ceiling isn't raised by August.

Goddamn, must be a pain in the ass working for the Treasury Department these days....
__________________
Canadiens1131 is offline  
Old 07-14-2011, 04:43 AM   #225
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 04:44 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrsSpringsteen View Post




You can't dismiss this guy out of hand.

There may be something to the SATAN - OBAMA connection.

SATAN - 5 letters
OBAMA - 5 letters

SATAN - 2 As
OBAMA - 2 As

SATAN - 2 vowels 3 consonnants
OBAMA - 2 consonnants 3 vowels


A bit too much for just coincidence.
__________________

__________________
deep is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:44 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com