Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Obamer's job billFollow

#52 Sep 09 2011 at 11:12 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,547 posts
Quote:
Well, he mentioned a bridge, so that's something.


OMG the bridge to no where is back!!!!
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#53 Sep 09 2011 at 11:14 PM Rating: Decent
Needs More Smut
******
21,262 posts
Kentucky to Ohio is now "nowhere."

Sounds about right.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck: Retired December 2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest and Taprara Rara on Lamia Server - Member of The Swarm
Curator of the XIV Wallpapers Tumblr and the XIV Fashion Tumblr
#54 Sep 10 2011 at 6:20 AM Rating: Good
Scholar
39 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
decayed wrote:
So its a political maneuver? Neat!
Apparently it's unheard of for some people that politicians are, in fact, politicians.


Well, he IS a democrat.

rdmcandie wrote:
Seems a lot more politically motivated then economically motivated.

Option 1.

The bills passes (most likely not in full), Obama is seen as a president who does seem to get, on top of that he managed to get Washington to work together on something that really needs to be fixed.

Option 2.

The bill fails, republicans are seen as anti job creation, Obama then takes this to the campaign trail touting he had a plan in place that could be easily paid for that created jobs and offered companies tax relief to do so.

Either way Obama wins, and most importantly in the independent section.

My own opinion is there is a lot of fluff in the bill, and the majority of the jobs appear to be temporary infrastructure projects. The shining point to me is the tax credit for businesses to hire people who have been unemployed for 6 months or more. (then again that probably only stands out because the Premier of Ontario just decided to announce a tax credit for companies to hire new immigrants, not all Ontarians.)



The third option is that the bill passes and because it is filled with austerity measures, the economy tanks and the republicans say, "See, Obama caused the economy to die!"

I don't think voters have a strong enough memory to realize that the economy tanked because of republican ideals which were suggested by democrats. Then again, the republicans can always say that the democrats just used the wrong kinds of tax cuts or something.


Finally I am convinced that Gbaji uses this forum as a practice for twisting words and pointing fingers.
Edited, Sep 10th 2011 8:24am by decayed

Edited, Sep 10th 2011 8:27am by decayed
#55 Sep 10 2011 at 7:31 AM Rating: Excellent
I'm baffled as to why gbaji thinks tax cuts to small business would be bad.
____________________________
Edited, Mar 21st 2011 2:14pm by Darqflame Lock Thread: Because Lubriderm is silly... ~ de geso

Almalieque wrote:
I know what a glory hole is, but I wasn't sure what the business part was in reference to.

My Anime List
#56 Sep 10 2011 at 5:04 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Admiral Lubriderm wrote:
I'm baffled as to why gbaji thinks tax cuts to small business would be bad.

Because Obama is asking for them. This means he hates big business!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#57 Sep 12 2011 at 3:20 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,982 posts
Admiral Lubriderm wrote:
I'm baffled as to why gbaji thinks tax cuts to small business would be bad.


I'm baffled as to why you seem to think that's all that's in this bill. What part of me saying earlier that there are some good things in here but sufficient poison pills to make the GOP oppose it did you not get? There's just enough of that stuff so that if/when the GOP opposes it the Dems can jump up and down (as many libs on this forum are doing) and declare that "The GOP opposes tax cuts for small businesses and veterans!!!!", when it's really about the GOP opposing all the other wasteful and ill defined "stimulus" spending in the same bill.

Why not *just* do the tax cuts and incentives? If that's what you're holding the GOP to, then that must be the most important parts of this plan, right? But let me go out on a limb and suspect that if the GOP were to counter with a bill that had every single (real) tax cut in this proposal but which eliminated all of the spending, the Dems would still howl about it. And you'd be right there with them, parroting whatever talking points they choose to use.


It's pure politics. This plan has nothing to do with economic recovery or jobs.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#58 Sep 12 2011 at 3:23 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
7,547 posts
well i wouldn't say it has nothing to do with the economy or jobs. When you half-*** something you are still at least going half way. But ya its purely political, and depending on the cuts they claim to want to announce it could be a check mate move where Obama wins regardless. (at least with the independent/undecided voters, the only voters that actually matter in politics.)

Quote:


it's really about the GOP opposing all the other wasteful and ill defined "stimulus" spending in the same bill.


So not only do you hate small business tax cuts, you also hate schools, hospitals and other basic infrastructure society requires.

Edited, Sep 12th 2011 5:26pm by rdmcandie
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#59 Sep 12 2011 at 3:31 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,982 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
well i wouldn't say it has nothing to do with the economy or jobs. When you half-*** something you are still at least going half way. But ya its purely political, and depending on the cuts they claim to want to announce it could be a check mate move where Obama wins regardless. (at least with the independent/undecided voters, the only voters that actually matter in politics.)


Nah. There's a pretty easy way for the GOP to win, and they've got exactly the correct position and tools to do it. Remember, this is a jobs "plan". It's not yet a bill. Interestingly enough, Obama's staff doesn't appear to have even started working with any members of congress to write any actual legislation. So this is so far just the political equivalent of an idea sketched on the back of a napkin.

What the GOP should do is write the bill for the President. Make it sound like it hits all the points the President asked for, but do it "their way" so to speak. Then you effectively reverse the political aspect of this. You have to remember that much of the debate right now is over rhetoric. What is a "tax cut", what is a "small business", what is "infrastructure spending"? The GOP could use that to their advantage for a change and basically hoist Obama on his own petard. It would put the Dems in the position of having to oppose their own jobs plan.

Funny! We'll probably see some variation of this to be honest. The GOP will propose their version of the jobs plan, and the Dems will as well. Then much bickering will ensue. I suppose there's some slim chance that Obama comes out looking slightly better in all of that, but I still don't think it raises him above someone who's "clean" and coming in from outside (ie: pretty much any GOP presidential candidate).

I don't fault Obama for trying this though. It's pretty much the only shot he's got left.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#60 Sep 12 2011 at 3:38 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,982 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
Quote:

it's really about the GOP opposing all the other wasteful and ill defined "stimulus" spending in the same bill.


So not only do you hate small business tax cuts, you also hate schools, hospitals and other basic infrastructure society requires.


I'd oppose giving everyone in the country a free pony too! I'm just such a meanie! Reasoning is the same though: As nice as it might be to spend money on those things, this is supposed to be about creating jobs as part of helping the economy recover.

As I pointed out earlier (I'm pretty sure anyway!), what matters is not just the creation of jobs, but the creation of productive jobs. The economy will only recover as a result of job creation *if* those jobs generate more productive value to the economy than they cost the economy to create. Should be obvious if you stop and think about it, but it's interesting how this kinda gets lost in the discussion most of the time. If the jobs you create cost more than they generate, then when the money runs out, the jobs will disappear and you'll have to spend more money to create more jobs again. But each time through this cycle, you've reduced the total amount of money you have potentially to do this.


It's a losing process. Over time we will weaken and impoverish our economy, not strengthen and grow it. I know that it seems easier and more straightforward to just direct funds via government to create jobs, but in order for the economy to grow we have to trust that the private market will create them and let them do that. It's scary to many people because it feels like letting go of the wheel, but believe it or not, it's what is needed for economic recovery. And what Obama proposes, while not entirely harmful, wont actually help. It'll just shuffle money around at best and cost us money at worst.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#61 Sep 12 2011 at 3:46 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
7,547 posts
Quote:
Funny! We'll probably see some variation of this to be honest. The GOP will propose their version of the jobs plan, and the Dems will as well. Then much bickering will ensue. I suppose there's some slim chance that Obama comes out looking slightly better in all of that, but I still don't think it raises him above someone who's "clean" and coming in from outside


You mean the ones who have to cater to the right wing loonies who call them selves the Tea Party. The GOP is sunk, mostly due to the reception of the Tea Party candidates lack of well anything in Congress. I personally don't like Obama either I think he has been a joke of a president (mostly because he is 90% fluff), you are fooling yourself if you think the collection of wannabes the GOP has assembled has any hope of winning next november. I doubt it will be as big a blow out as 08 was, but its still not going to be a contest.

At least people already know what they will get with Obama. Of course, thanks to the stagnant congress, (both sides are really to blame but since the dems lost control of congress/senate nothing Obama has played for has really come together.) his elaborate plans didn't really go anywhere.

I also think I said this before, but placing blame on Presidents is ******* stupid. Its not his fault the children in Congress can't play nice. Similar to the latter years of the Bush administration. Fix your **** Congress and overall your political system, I mean I love watching you and Joph toss your respective groups talking points around, quoting your biased news sources like its the end all be all of printed information.

Its pathetic your country is split in two, with venom being sprayed from both sides. Americans want Jobs, Obama has a half assed plan, and no one else does.

Your congress is crap, not your president.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#62 Sep 12 2011 at 3:52 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
7,547 posts
Quote:
I know that it seems easier and more straightforward to just direct funds via government to create jobs, but in order for the economy to grow we have to trust that the private market will create them and let them do that.


The private sector is screwed right now and is already very loosely taxed. The rich bastards you claim create jobs are sitting on Trillions of liquid assets and doing nothing with it. The private sector has abandoned the USA and moved to newly lucrative places like China, India, Brazil, Canada, and Australia. The only way to get hem to want to come back is to get people spending money again, with 9% of the population unemployed, and likely another 9+% of the population Under Employed people are not spending money, and since money isn't moving jobs aren't either.

Fix Consumer Confidence, that is what drives the economy, a healthy middle class means a healthy country.
Right now the American Middle class is screwed and disappearing at a fast rate. That is why you need to make jobs, so these people will spend money.

Private sector spending is a joke, and it always has been.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#63 Sep 12 2011 at 4:36 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
I'm baffled as to why you seem to think that's all that's in this bill. What part of me saying earlier that there are some good things in here but sufficient poison pills to make the GOP oppose it did you not get?

The part where you claimed the tax cuts were a grand mixture of rewarding Democratic allies and punishing their enemies and those small business tax cuts just proved it because they're not for big business.

I'll happily admit that's not the only thing in the bill but you've still failed to make any convincing argument supporting your claim.

gbaji wrote:
Obama's staff doesn't appear to have even started working with any members of congress to write any actual legislation. So this is so far just the political equivalent of an idea sketched on the back of a napkin.
The super biased and liberal hack talking point rag, The Hill, wrote:
President Obama on Monday produced a hard copy of the jobs bill he is sending to Congress, holding it up in a Rose Garden event and challenging lawmakers to put politics aside and pass the measure.
[...]
Obama, seeking a rally after a summer of sinking approval numbers and universally maligned Washington gridlock, told Congress "here it is," and adding he wanted "no games, no politics, no delays."

Heh.

Edited, Sep 12th 2011 5:41pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#64 Sep 12 2011 at 7:51 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,982 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I'm baffled as to why you seem to think that's all that's in this bill. What part of me saying earlier that there are some good things in here but sufficient poison pills to make the GOP oppose it did you not get?

The part where you claimed the tax cuts were a grand mixture of rewarding Democratic allies and punishing their enemies and those small business tax cuts just proved it because they're not for big business.


And tax cuts for small businesses constituted 100% of the proposed changes (this is the second time I've asked you this btw)?

Quote:
I'll happily admit that's not the only thing in the bill but you've still failed to make any convincing argument supporting your claim.


Which claim? That it's a bad plan because it lumps a whole ton of bad stuff in with a smattering of good so that the Dems can blame anyone who opposes it by saying that they're opposed to small businesses or veterans? My assumption that "tax cuts" will include "tax credits" and will be used for a whole **** of a lot more than just payroll tax deductions for small businesses?


What you're seeing is "boy who cried wolf" syndrome Joph. After the half dozenth time the Dems have played the same "but X% of the bill is tax cuts. Why are you opposing it? You like tax cuts!!!", I have very little faith in any sort of honesty from the Dems in terms of how they describe a bill they are proposing and what they actually put into the bill later on. Maybe if your party hadn't played the whole "finish the legislation at the 11th hour then call for a vote before anyone can read it" game so many times, they wouldn't have so many people unwilling to trust them.


Sure they just want to give people tax cuts. Sure. Cause they've been so upfront and honest with their use of the phrase "tax cuts" in the past.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#65 Sep 12 2011 at 8:00 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
And tax cuts for small businesses constituted 100% of the proposed changes (this is the second time I've asked you this btw)?

Wow, are you going to marry that strawman? I mean, you've got yourself balls deep in it like a motherfucker. I hope you at least bought it dinner first.

Quote:
Which claim?

Really? This is the game you need to play now? That desperate that soon?

Smiley: disappointed
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#66 Sep 12 2011 at 8:16 PM Rating: Excellent
Prodigal Son
******
20,518 posts
I like how giving Republicans what they want is a "compromise" but anything the Dems want is a "poison pill". The only viable option is to fully capitulate to the GOP, eh?
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#67 Sep 12 2011 at 8:18 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,982 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
Quote:
I know that it seems easier and more straightforward to just direct funds via government to create jobs, but in order for the economy to grow we have to trust that the private market will create them and let them do that.


The private sector is screwed right now and is already very loosely taxed. The rich bastards you claim create jobs are sitting on Trillions of liquid assets and doing nothing with it.


Why do you suppose that is? Don't you think that being rich and being greedy, they wouldn't just sit on so much money? Wouldn't they want to use it to make more money for themselves? So why aren't they?

Quote:
The private sector has abandoned the USA and moved to newly lucrative places like China, India, Brazil, Canada, and Australia.


Ah. So you do understand why? It's because rich people invest their money in places where their investments are more likely to be lucrative. So isn't the obvious solution to make the USA a more lucrative place to invest? At the very least, shouldn't we entertain the possibility that doing things that make said investment less lucrative might just have something to do with those rich people not creating jobs?


Quote:
The only way to get hem to want to come back is to get people spending money again, with 9% of the population unemployed, and likely another 9+% of the population Under Employed people are not spending money, and since money isn't moving jobs aren't either.


Consumption really isn't the problem though. I know that lots of people keep saying it is, but that's a symptom of the problem, not the cause. It's kind of a chicken and egg issue, right? If you employ more people, they'll have more money and buy stuff, which allows the business community to continue employing them. But that only works if they're employed making stuff that other people are buying. I really can't stress this enough. It's why I keep harping about "productive jobs".

If you pay people to do stuff that you nor I want or are willing to pay for (the result, not the salary itself), then the job wont be self sustaining and we wont see economic recovery as a result of it existing. If those people are employed making stuff other people buy (for example), then there is much greater economic effect. Because not only do we get the economic effects of their income being spent in the economy, but we get the effect of their labor as something others can spend their incomes on.


I just keep trying to explain this concept on this board, and it feels like I'm just not getting it through. And the reason why the private sector is important is because private sector jobs (especially those unburdened by government subsidies and whatnot) are much much more likely to result in those "productive jobs" that we need than the public sector is.

Quote:
Fix Consumer Confidence, that is what drives the economy, a healthy middle class means a healthy country.


Those aren't connected to each other though. Not directly. Are you aware that in the 2010 to early 2011 time frame consumption rates were pretty healthy? As a result of pumping money into the demand side of the economy for a couple years, we were artificially keeping consumption at decent levels. But as I (and most conservatives) predicted, once the money runs out, the effect disappears. It's not sustainable.

You need useful productivity to match consumption demand. And when this happens as a result of jobs being created in the free market, those two will tend to match each other nicely.

Quote:
Right now the American Middle class is screwed and disappearing at a fast rate. That is why you need to make jobs, so these people will spend money.


This is a much broader and longer term statement though. I'll point out again that very few people working for small businesses are what we'd call middle class. Focusing our efforts on creating jobs for the sake of being able to point to a number and say we've made things better just seems counter productive. This jobs bill will create some jobs. But most of the jobs it'll create are low income subsistence level jobs (except for the union jobs it'll create as well, but that's another subject).

They wont last. And they certainly wont help the middle class grow.

Quote:
Private sector spending is a joke, and it always has been.


What is "private sector spending"? The private sector seeks to make a profit. It does this by hiring people to do things which produce a greater economic value than the cost of the labor itself. The net result is that people have jobs, the government gets some tax revenue, and the economy grows. It's not about how much money it "spends", and it's bizarre that you'd even use that phrase. It suggests you really have no clue what the role of the private sector is and are treating everything through the lens of public spending.


That's *not* normal. The idea that you should spend money to create jobs is not normal. Jobs should make money, not cost it.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#68 Sep 12 2011 at 8:20 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,982 posts
Debalic wrote:
I like how giving Republicans what they want is a "compromise" but anything the Dems want is a "poison pill". The only viable option is to fully capitulate to the GOP, eh?


The GOP is at least honest about what things they want and what things they're willing to compromise on. The Dems constantly attempt to relabel what they want to make it seem like what the GOP wants so that they can claim that they're not really getting anything so there's no need to compromise at all.

What do you think the whole "But X% of the bill is tax cuts" is about? You really don't see the political tactic being used? That seems remarkably naive to me.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#69 Sep 12 2011 at 8:31 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
The GOP is at least honest about what things they want and what things they're willing to compromise on.

Nothing? Smiley: laugh



Edited, Sep 12th 2011 9:34pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#70 Sep 12 2011 at 8:39 PM Rating: Good
***
1,000 posts
In Gbaji's USA, the poor and middle class should bend over and take it up the **** chute because the rich want us to. After all, what's good for the rich is good for everyone.

At what point does social responsibility kick in? Never in Gbajiland.
____________________________
Come on Bill, let's go home
[ffxisig]63311[/ffxisig]
#71 Sep 12 2011 at 9:07 PM Rating: Excellent
Needs More Smut
******
21,262 posts
Social responsibility for conservatives is giving a $10 box of canned goods to a Thanksgiving drive.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck: Retired December 2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest and Taprara Rara on Lamia Server - Member of The Swarm
Curator of the XIV Wallpapers Tumblr and the XIV Fashion Tumblr
#72 Sep 13 2011 at 3:58 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
7,547 posts
Quote:

Why do you suppose that is? Don't you think that being rich and being greedy, they wouldn't just sit on so much money? Wouldn't they want to use it to make more money for themselves? So why aren't they?


They are. They just aren't doing it in the USA.

Quote:
It's because rich people invest their money in places where their investments are more likely to be lucrative. So isn't the obvious solution to make the USA a more lucrative place to invest?


Hard to make money when people are to afraid to spend it, because 1. They aren't sure if they will have a job tomorrow, and 2. because the fragile economy could **** the bed at any time in the foreseeable future.

Quote:
If you pay people to do stuff that you nor I want or are willing to pay for (the result, not the salary itself), then the job wont be self sustaining and we wont see economic recovery as a result of it existing. If those people are employed making stuff other people buy (for example), then there is much greater economic effect.


You mean like the jobs the private sector has been moving out of the states since the 80's?



Quote:

Those aren't connected to each other though. Not directly. Are you aware that in the 2010 to early 2011 time frame consumption rates were pretty healthy? As a result of pumping money into the demand side of the economy for a couple years, we were artificially keeping consumption at decent levels. But as I (and most conservatives) predicted, once the money runs out, the effect disappears. It's not sustainable.
So you do need a strong consumer confidence then? I am confused are you agreeing with me?
Quote:

This jobs bill will create some jobs. But most of the jobs it'll create are low income subsistence level jobs (except for the union jobs it'll create as well, but that's another subject).

What the **** do you think the middle class is built on?

Quote:
That's *not* normal. The idea that you should spend money to create jobs is not normal. Jobs should make money, not cost it.


Each year the American government spends billions (so to speak) so the private sector can create jobs....trouble is, they aren't and when they do most cases it is outside of you country. Everything has a price tag, you should know this being a hard line conservative. But that gets lost in the rhetoric usually doesn't it. If spending money to help companies afford to hire more people can't work, how do you propose that solid tax breaks do....in the end companies net the same returns so what you are really trying to say is to stop giving the private sector huge tax breaks since spending money into it isn't normal? I can agree with that.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#73varusword75, Posted: Sep 14 2011 at 9:58 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) r2d2,
#74 Sep 14 2011 at 10:18 AM Rating: Excellent
******
49,825 posts
The price tag being "Do it our way or we ruin everything" apparently.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#75varusword75, Posted: Sep 14 2011 at 10:22 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) lagaga,
#76 Sep 14 2011 at 10:23 AM Rating: Excellent
******
49,825 posts
Gumbo Galahad wrote:
Waaaaahhhh...
Finally a post from you that was exactly how everyone reads it.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 1 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (1)