Government doesn't pad numbers at all...

[XYNaPSE]

Originally Posted by Rich

How? How can you prove that?

Yes. None of that money would have been injected into economy therefore none of those contracts would have been created, nobody would have made any money, no jobs would have been saved or created and so on. It's really simple. Take away all the tax cuts and the amount spent so far out of circulation.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by XYNaPSE

Yes. None of that money would have been injected into economy therefore none of those contracts would have been created, nobody would have made any money, no jobs would have been saved or created and so on. It's really simple. Take away all the tax cuts and the amount spent so far out of circulation.

Its a rhetorical question. What contracts? You can't create a government job without destroying a private sector job. The majority of stimulus is pork BS, the dollar is getting worse, unemployment is on the rise. "Saved or Created"... what a joke. Obama's teleprompter at it again.

The reason why its a rhetorical question is because we don't know. All we can look at are governments that have done similar things and every instance they lengthened their recession. You can't take a bucket of water out of a pool's deep end, pour it in the shallow end and expect the water level in the pool to rise.

[LuckyH]

Originally Posted by XYNaPSE

Yes. None of that money would have been injected into economy therefore none of those contracts would have been created, nobody would have made any money, no jobs would have been saved or created and so on. It's really simple. Take away all the tax cuts and the amount spent so far out of circulation.

So without the assistance of large sums of money, those jobs would not be there? Well what happens when the money runs out? Hopefully a stable market is created before it does, otherwise your going to have a bunch of people who got paid 30k a year at a cost much greater than that. People and businesses are saving money more than they did a few years ago. Until consumers feel comfortable spending again, you can inject all the money you want it doesn't necessarily mean they are going to spend it.

edit: Also the type of people that would blow money in this economy are exactly the kind of people you don't want to be giving it to.

[XYNaPSE]

Originally Posted by Rich

Its a rhetorical question. What contracts? You can't create a government job without destroying a private sector job. The majority of stimulus is pork BS, the dollar is getting worse, unemployment is on the rise. "Saved or Created"... what a joke. Obama's teleprompter at it again.

The reason why its a rhetorical question is because we don't know. All we can look at are governments that have done similar things and every instance they lengthened their recession. You can't take a bucket of water out of a pool's deep end, pour it in the shallow end and expect the water level in the pool to rise.

The private sector jobs didn't exist. I don't think you've been paying attention. You're whole ideology seems to be fuct. We do know exactly what's going on by tracking the money. I tire of yours and Josh's silly analogies. Here;s one for you. You have to poor water into a leaking bathtub or else you'll lose all the water.

[LuckyH]

Originally Posted by XYNaPSE

You have to poor water into a leaking bathtub or else you'll lose all the water.

Why pour money into a leaking bathtub when there's a tub right next to it that has no holes and has a garden hose already in it running full blast. I used to sell motorcycles, i can't imagine that's very high on most people's priority list right now. So pouring money into a dealership to create/save jobs probably wouldn't be the most effective plan ever conceived.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by XYNaPSE

The private sector jobs didn't exist. I don't think you've been paying attention. You're whole ideology seems to be fuct. We do know exactly what's going on by tracking the money. I tire of yours and Josh's silly analogies. Here;s one for you. You have to poor water into a leaking bathtub or else you'll lose all the water.

Yeah - the rupture is government spending, and the American tax payer's money is a trickling faucet trying to keep up.

[XYNaPSE]

Originally Posted by LuckyH

Why pour money into a leaking bathtub when there's a tub right next to it that has no holes and has a garden hose already in it running full blast. I used to sell motorcycles, i can't imagine that's very high on most people's priority list right now. So pouring money into a dealership to create/save jobs probably wouldn't be the most effective plan ever conceived.

WTF? There is so much fail here I don't know where to begin.

[XYNaPSE]

Originally Posted by Rich

Yeah - the rupture is government spending, and the American tax payer's money is a trickling faucet trying to keep up.

No. The leaks will always be there for various reasons but they get bigger through deregulation. I wouldn't call the U.S. budget a leaky faucet.

[LuckyH]

Originally Posted by XYNaPSE

WTF? There is so much fail here I don't know where to begin.

The idea of choosing a good market to invest in confuses you? So you might not be a socialist after all, just a little slow. I can handle a "special" person better than I can a liberal.

[blacksheep-1]

Ok let me get this straight, even if it didn't work in the late 70s early 80s, I guess the government is going to force it down our throats ..again.
The government rapes people in taxes and then decides to give it out as a "stimulus" (or wahtever the current catch phrase is) this takes money out of the hands of private citizens and funnels it into whatever pet/pork or other BS government project is out there.
1.The government continues to keep it's bloated budget
2. The money is taken out of circulation and is funneled into government project which benefits a focused few.
3. More money is printed increasing inflation.
4. The money is injected immediately or short term for instant return
5. the government through taxation and focusing the investment increases it's size and control over individuals. (thereby needing more money to run increasing the worst of everything)
OR..
You lower taxes
1.This keeps more money in circulation so there is no net loss of it
2. You don't have to print more momey because there is more in circulation, lessening inflation
3.Private indiviuals, not the government chooses the investment methods which will build the economy long term
4. there is less government control over the country's wealth, which means a smaller governemnt, less money to run.
Got it!

[XYNaPSE]

Originally Posted by LuckyH

The idea of choosing a good market to invest in confuses you? So you might not be a socialist after all, just a little slow. I can handle a "special" person better than I can a liberal.

You must not have comprehended the bathroom tub concept. There is only one tub.

[fencerider2]

Originally Posted by XYNaPSE

Most of the stimulus hasn't even been used yet. lol Half of it was tax cuts. What was it... $4 billion awarded to Maine the other day to improve their Electric grid? I wonder how many jobs $4 billion will save/create? I wonder how much cost/efficiency this upgrade will save. You can't say it hasn't done any good. You'll have to wait till the middle or end of 2010 to see the real effects.

You're so FULL OF SHIT that I bet you have Brown eyes.

[LuckyH]

Originally Posted by XYNaPSE

You must not have comprehended the bathroom tub concept. There is only one tub.

Says the socialist

On a serious note. If the one tub theory were true, and they had to bail out companies so that the tub "didn't drain completely", then how come some of these companies claimed bankruptcy after being "bailed out" and yet somehow the economy didn't magically implode as they stated it would.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vW84wozJjzQ

I like how he stated had they "allowed GM to liquidate" it would have been "anti stimulus". Although isn't that exactly what GM did with the government funded cash for clunkers program . They were able to liquidate a shit load of inventory that otherwise would have sat unsold.

[XYNaPSE]

Originally Posted by LuckyH

Says the socialist

On a serious note. If the one tub theory were true, and they had to bail out companies so that the tub "didn't drain completely", then how come some of these companies claimed bankruptcy after being "bailed out" and yet somehow the economy didn't magically implode as they stated it would.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vW84wozJjzQ

I like how he stated had they "allowed GM to liquidate" it would have been "anti stimulus". Although isn't that exactly what GM did with the government funded cash for clunkers program . They were able to liquidate a shit load of inventory that otherwise would have sat unsold.

Bailouts and stimulus are 2 different things. Bailouts are actually giving money to designated companies to help them deal with all their debt. A stimulus is just saying here is a bunch of money, come and get but you better have a good idea on how to use it. The bailouts you speak of are for the automakers which we now have more than one. If GM did not go through a bankruptcy a lot of their debt would have eventually been paid and GM would have not lost a lot of their infrastructure. Since they did go through a bankruptcy (because the debtors could not reach a deal) a lot of those debtors will get paid with assets instead of cash and some won't get paid at all. So it's a big loss for everything including the jobs and economy. It's ok though, GM will survive and we'll have another automaker instead of all the foreigners coming in and taking over.

Cash for clunkers was a stimulus to get rid of all the cars that were sitting there and give a boost to the whole industry from car dealers to car makers and to the purchaser.

[perdition79]

Originally Posted by XYNaPSE

Since they did go through a bankruptcy (because the debtors could not reach a deal) a lot of those debtors will get paid with assets instead of cash and some won't get paid at all.

Creditors. The word is creditors.

So it's a big loss for everything including the jobs and economy. It's ok though, GM will survive and we'll have another automaker instead of all the foreigners coming in and taking over.

Or we'll have union workers being paid to do nothing, or 2009 vehicles still unsold well into 2011.

Cash for clunkers was a stimulus to get rid of all the cars that were sitting there and give a boost to the whole industry from car dealers to car makers and to the purchaser.

How many windows must the government break before the shop keepers realize that they're being fleeced for the sake of the glaziers?

“The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.”

- Alexis de Tocqueville

[jabtay]

xyn- i find your Plato sig very ironic

[XYNaPSE]

Originally Posted by perdition79

Creditors. The word is creditors.



Or we'll have union workers being paid to do nothing, or 2009 vehicles still unsold well into 2011.



How many windows must the government break before the shop keepers realize that they're being fleeced for the sake of the glaziers?

“The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.”

- Alexis de Tocqueville

Yes creditors. My bad. What I said still stands though. If the creditors could have reached a deal they wouldn't have gone through a bankruptcy and would've been paid eventually with a better deal. GM is actually down sizing so they'll probably layoff 6000 or 7000 more people. While they are actually hiring in other places. By the end of the month they'll pay off a $2.2 billion loan to keep Opel instead of selling it which pissed off the Germans big time because they want it and now they'll be laying off around 20% of the German workforce while they restructure. GM will be a major player in the world regarding the auto making business thanks to bailouts.