15 Sep 11
Originally posted by whodeyHe wrote that before the last 2 Obama solar companies called it quits, But he could be thinking about cash for clunkers, which gave dealers a small boost, and the metal scrap yards some work.. sad indeed.
Millions of jobs were created? Source?
Have no fear though, jeffrey Immelt will save us all, as soon as he finishes getting his own company out of the country.... buy sylvania...not GE
Micron memory mad in Idaho....
15 Sep 11
Originally posted by whodeyYou have been repeatedly pressed to substantiate how the stimulus plan produced no jobs. Now is another opportunity.
Here is your chance to help sell the Presidents newly proposed Job Act. Tell us how the proposed $447 billion in spending will do anything differently than the previous $787 billion in the last stimulus that did not produce one job.
15 Sep 11
Originally posted by no1marauderFraud and intent have nothing to do with it. If a Ponzi scheme could continue indefinitely, it probably would. The moment of collapse in any Ponzi scheme is that, eventually, former contributors want distributions at a rate higher than what new contributors are willing to put in.
No, you are not "close". Ponzi schemes require an intent to defraud which is absolutely lacking in SS and other social insurance. SS is not an "investment fraud", does not claim to generate "returns", has no "investors" or "fraudsters". It is widely popular program which needs some tweaking in order to pay at presently legislated levels in the somewhat d ...[text shortened]... richer workers subsidizing poorer ones. That might rankle, but it's not fraud.
SS is a 'government-run' Ponzi scheme which has several advantages over a private one. They can a) force contributions, and b) limit payouts -- things which a privately-run Ponzi scheme normally cannot do (participation is voluntary and they have made agreements about payouts which they cannot unilaterally break). Of course, governments can become unpopular if they proceed with such tweaks -- as well they should.
But public or private, a Ponzi scheme is a Ponzi scheme -- and if distributions exceed contributions, the same result occurs.
15 Sep 11
Originally posted by spruce112358I know you desperately want it to be a Ponzi scheme, but it's not.
Fraud and intent have nothing to do with it. If a Ponzi scheme could continue indefinitely, it probably would. The moment of collapse in any Ponzi scheme is that, eventually, former contributors want distributions at a rate higher than what new contributors are willing to put in.
SS is a 'government-run' Ponzi scheme which has several advantages over ...[text shortened]... scheme is a Ponzi scheme -- and if distributions exceed contributions, the same result occurs.
There's an episode of Two and a Half Men (it's on hulu now) that showcases a Ponzi scheme perfectly. Alan went around collecting money to "invest" in advertising, saying he will pay them back with interest. He collected $5000 from Charlie, then $15,000 from his mother. When Charlie asked for his money he Alan said, "Here it is with interest!" and handed him $6000. Seeing a quick 20% gain, Charlie said to let it ride and handed him even more money. Soon everyone is handing him money and nobody is asking for their investment back. In ghe mean time he's out spending it all and it comes to a head when Burta asks for her money back.
A Ponzi scheme only works when the vast majority of "investors" aren't cashing out. That, of course, isn't the case with SS. For 70 years hundreds of millions of people have recieved their benefits, with ZERO people who qualify being denied.
It is a very successful safety net program funded by payroll taxes. Having to tweek it every few decades because 25 years down the road it will stop paying for itself does NOT make it a Ponzi scheme. If, for example, it wasn't funded solely by low and middle incomes Social Security would be running a massive surplus.
15 Sep 11
Originally posted by whodeyHere you go.
Millions of jobs were created? Source?
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/sep/12/rick-perry/rick-perry-says-2009-stimulus-created-zero-jobs/
And then there's the fact that it took us from losing hundreds of thousands of jobs every month, to a small trickle of monthy jobs gains.
YOUR source that it created no jobs?
15 Sep 11
1 edit
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperThe naturally cyclical economy took us from losing hundreds of thousands of jobs to gaining very few. A more competent group of economic policy makers may have taken us from losing hundreds of thousands of jobs to gaining hundreds of thousands of jobs in this time.
Here you go.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/sep/12/rick-perry/rick-perry-says-2009-stimulus-created-zero-jobs/
And then there's the fact that it took us from losing hundreds of thousands of jobs every month, to a small trickle of monthy jobs gains.
YOUR source that it created no jobs?
But I do agree that to say that the stimulus created zero jobs is nonsense.
15 Sep 11
1 edit
Originally posted by USArmyParatroopertry 9.1 % unemployment, which is actually low by most estimates.... what was it we were told it would go to without the STIMULUS?
Here you go.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/sep/12/rick-perry/rick-perry-says-2009-stimulus-created-zero-jobs/
And then there's the fact that it took us from losing hundreds of thousands of jobs every month, to a small trickle of monthy jobs gains.
YOUR source that it created no jobs?
It's not just the fact it is 9.1%, it also the extent of time it has and will be there, predicted to be high through 2012...now if you say the first stimulus worked, we got very little for our tax money I'd say... so you can argue it helped until the cows come home, the fact is unemployemnt is still way higher than we were told it should be by Obama.... a fact that will haunt Obama in big way.
Another fact, of all Presidents, Obama has far fewer people with actual business and private sector experience, far fewer!!! With the economy as it is, one would expect more "professional" help in his cabinet.. other than Jeffrey "Mr. China" Immelt.
Prove it helped slow down job loss,,,,? We had census workers that were getting hired and laid-off and re-hired?? what a joke.
Maybe the military should start taking some of these kids without HS diplomas again, and teach them a trade? Obama seems to want to grow government, what better trade school is out there than military service? learn disipline, leadership and what ever else is available...... or you could stop pumping your own gas, a job created in oregon to keep unemployment low, nobody pumps their own gas,, not much of a job, but still? Funny though, we still have high unemployment, and higher gas prices to pay for the service?? Go figure, another liberal state here,
This topic grows old.... what ever Pelosis wants to call it, the bill will never pass in present form.
15 Sep 11
1 edit
Originally posted by sh76True, but let's be clear on the language. The only jobs the government "creates" are government jobs. Private sector jobs are "created" by private sector companies hiring private sector employees in their attempts to create wealth. A government can try to foster an environment wherein private companies are growing enough to need more employees, but it's misleading to claim the government creates anything in the private sector (except anxiety of late).
But I do agree that to say that the stimulus created zero jobs is nonsense.
15 Sep 11
Originally posted by sh76OK, so it created a few jobs,, were those jobs worth the money spent? pay back is extremely low by business standards, it would be called a failure, and heads would roll, just as they rolled Tuesday, and will roll again in 2012.... Big diff in business, those heads would roll asap in the real world... In my world a capital expenditure had to show payback in months..... not years.
The naturally cyclical economy took us from losing hundreds of thousands of jobs to gaining very few. A more competent group of economic policy makers may have taken us from losing hundreds of thousands of jobs to gaining hundreds of thousands of jobs in this time.
But I do agree that to say that the stimulus created zero jobs is nonsense.
15 Sep 11
Originally posted by Hugh GlassSo it was worse than their estimates. Also you can have net jobs gains and still have unemployment go up or stay the same. Part of the equasion is how many people decide to attempt to enter the work force.
try 9.1 % unemployment, which is actually low by most estimates.... what was it we were told it would go to without the STIMULUS?
It's not just the fact it is 9.1%, it also the extent of time it has and will be there, predicted to be high through 2012...now if you say the first stimulus worked, we got very little for our tax money I'd say... so you can a ...[text shortened]... rows old.... what ever Pelosis wants to call it, the bill will never pass in present form.
15 Sep 11
Originally posted by SleepyguyThe problem with what you said is it's 100% false. The only two months we didn't have positive total jobs were do to government layoffs. And in those months we still have positive private sector jobs.
True, but let's be clear on the language. The only jobs the government "creates" are government jobs. Private sector jobs are "created" by private sector companies hiring private sector employees in their attempts to create wealth. A government can try to foster an environment wherein private companies are growing enough to need more employees, but it's ...[text shortened]... g to claim the government creates anything in the private sector (except anxiety of late).
15 Sep 11
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperI don't want it to be anything. It is what it is.
I know you desperately want it to be a Ponzi scheme, but it's not.
There's an episode of Two and a Half Men (it's on hulu now) that showcases a Ponzi scheme perfectly. Alan went around collecting money to "invest" in advertising, saying he will pay them back with interest. He collected $5000 from Charlie, then $15,000 from his mother. When Charl ...[text shortened]... olely by low and middle incomes Social Security would be running a massive surplus.
The fact that it has functioned for years doesn't change what it is. Nor does how successful or unsuccessful it seems to be change what it is.
15 Sep 11
Originally posted by sh76Eventually, yes. But such a dramatic bounce that coincided with stimulus spending just a coincidence? I think not.
The naturally cyclical economy took us from losing hundreds of thousands of jobs to gaining very few. A more competent group of economic policy makers may have taken us from losing hundreds of thousands of jobs to gaining hundreds of thousands of jobs in this time.
But I do agree that to say that the stimulus created zero jobs is nonsense.
I agree that better policies would have made for a stronger recovery, like a more robust stimulus package. But you yourself have admitted the Republicans have done a better job politicing, getting their way and controlling the agenda.
- Joined
- 03 Feb 07
- Moves
- 194011
15 Sep 11
Originally posted by sh76The CBO says the stimulus created or saved nearly 4 million jobs.
The naturally cyclical economy took us from losing hundreds of thousands of jobs to gaining very few. A more competent group of economic policy makers may have taken us from losing hundreds of thousands of jobs to gaining hundreds of thousands of jobs in this time.
But I do agree that to say that the stimulus created zero jobs is nonsense.