Obama: Everything in this Bill Will Be Paid For

[Skilero]

Late 2009:
"The Obama administration has released new deficit numbers, and they are not pretty.

The deficit for fiscal year 2009, which ended Sept. 30, came in at a record $1.42 trillion, more than triple the record set just last year.

In addition, future deficits are currently projected to total $9.1 trillion in the coming decade."

- http://content.usatoday.com/communit...10/620000005/1

2011:
"Everything in here is the kind of proposal that's been supported by both Democrats and Republicans -- including many who sit here tonight. And everything in this bill will be paid for. Everything." - President Obama

- http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/09/08/obama.jobs.plan/

Who is paying for this?

Oh, and I apologize in advance for the armchair argument if you feel offended by the truth.

[Light Buster]

I honesty don't know if we're ever going to get ourselves out of this debt anymore. But as one says, "one can hope".

[GameGeeks]

We wont and as for who's paying for it, that'd be me and everyone else who pays taxes.

[Skilero]

Well, the President plans on cutting things (470B USD?) to spend the same amount on 'infrastructure' (what he's already done more than anyone else in history blahblahblah).

So, basically:

The US Debt is not of total concern, and if we can just cut out of the defense budget (I'll put money on this being the primary target of cuts from a 'bipartisan' act) to 'pay' for stimulus bills then the economy will recover.

Consumer confidence, expendable income for lower classes, and domestic business growth stemming from these two and new jobs policy, are what the necessary things today's economy needs to get out of this economic downturn. Bipartisan acts, as they've been legislated thus far, do none of these things effectively.

[Eris]

What Obama is doing is fundamentally a sound idea. You can't brake your way up a hill. To make money, you need to spend money.

[GameGeeks]

@Skillero Doubt the defense budget will get cut since Congress loves wasting money there.

[Ericgamer1]

If people aren't working, there is no money being made. plain and simple.

[GameGeeks]

And the Republicans could care less about that. As long as the rich get all the money then they're happy.

[Ericgamer1]

And the Republicans could care less about that. As long as the rich get all the money then they're happy.

The rich, er, I mean republican party has made it clear they want obama to fail, they want the country to fail.

they even said they would only support the jobs bill if it doesn't make a whole lot of jobs before the next election.

basically, the only thing they want is they want the government to disappear under some rock, everyone goes home, and businesses are allowed to do whatever the hell they want, and abuse their coustermers and employees for some extra pocket change. They want to get rid of the federal government because it gets in the way of the states mandating sponsored religion, and throw away every government protection and entitlement because.. I guess they don't think people have a right to eat or something.

[Skilero]

What Obama is doing is fundamentally a sound idea. You can't brake your way up a hill. To make money, you need to spend money.

This bill actually lowers payroll taxes considerably for lower classes. If the lower classes aren't paying for this bill, and since the Republicans won't allow the rich to be taxed (according to the above posters), we should fear the growing likelihood of another, large-scale QE3 (the Federal Reserve's newest tool most easily defined as government-sponsored money laundering); QE3 would further the printing of USD and create more of a rift between the rich and the poor. I don't think anyone wants that.

Eris was right about spending money, and that post holds a lot of value to it. For the facts, it should also be recognized that there are things in regulation and tax-regulations on businesses, if repealed from law, would spur economic growth almost immediately. You can't brake your way up a hill, but you should also try to get your car out of first gear if you want to make any progress.

A National Infrastructure Bank will form if this bill becomes law. God have mercy on us if we think a 'National' bank is going to benefit small companies rather than hurt them. If this bank is a positive thing at all when it's formed, huge amounts of money would have to be spent before any real small businesses are targeted and successfully grown to permanent effects.

[invalidation]

It doesn't matter that Obama takes our money; the entire government spends our tax dollars on useless grozit, and I honestly refuse to like or respect Obama until he tries to fix that. We need a bunch of Jewish mothers making all of the economic decisions in our country. What we need versus what we want. America is indeed the home of the free, we should be able to have what we want. But you know what? If we don't start fixing our economy now, the next generation will be dictated and split apart between the many different countries we're in debt to. If anything, Obama should worry about fixing what we spend money on and make money on. It's just a matter of placing our priorities in order. Compromise is the answer. No one seems to understand it is all. That is all.

[Wio]

What Obama is doing is fundamentally a sound idea. You can't brake your way up a hill. To make money, you need to spend money.

You have to create a new bubble to replace the old one, right?

[Eris]

You have to create a new bubble to replace the old one, right?

It's Keynesian economics. Love it or hate it, it works.

[invalidation]

Obama sucks, and I think that's the lesson we learned.

[DeathBlade/13.666]

This bill actually lowers payroll taxes considerably for lower classes. If the lower classes aren't paying for this bill, and since the Republicans won't allow the rich to be taxed (according to the above posters), we should fear the growing likelihood of another, large-scale QE3 (the Federal Reserve's newest tool most easily defined as government-sponsored money laundering); QE3 would further the printing of USD and create more of a rift between the rich and the poor. I don't think anyone wants that.

Well, according to the plan the rich will be taxed harder, some loopholes will close, and businesses will get tax breaks for hiring people. Which makes since, cut businesses a break to allow them to hire people and create more jobs. If only it will work in the real world. Small businesses will probably follow along, but the bigger corporations will probably try to work that to get more money without hiring too manying new people. As for taxing the rich, "Warren Buffet wants to be taxed. Let's tax'em!" "Tax'em all and let the IRS sort'em out."

Now Obama has the Republicans by the tail with their own words, and own wants. Only probelm is, because the bill is coming out of a democrat, they'll reject it until they can imploment it themselves. And most of the big talking Republicans are disagreeing with Obama's "All or nothing" approach, and trying to use that to make some sort of blocking. My only question is, can Obama keep this newfound spine against the Republicans and get this passed. I hope I can use a "Yes He Can!" joke to answer it in the long run.

[Skilero]

Now Obama has the Republicans by the tail with their own words, and own wants. Only probelm is, because the bill is coming out of a democrat, they'll reject it until they can imploment it themselves. And most of the big talking Republicans are disagreeing with Obama's "All or nothing" approach, and trying to use that to make some sort of blocking. My only question is, can Obama keep this newfound spine against the Republicans and get this passed. I hope I can use a "Yes He Can!" joke to answer it in the long run.

There are a number of reasons for the Republican party to vote against this bill, which can include the simple fact that it's coming out of a Democrat. However, a prospective likelihood expressed below...

Republicans do not want a National Infrastructure Bank; therefore, the bill will be voted against by select Republicans.

...Should not translate into "Obama has the Republicans by the tail with their own words, and own wants," no less, "The Republican party, as a whole, is being held by its tail."

My only question is, can Obama keep this newfound spine against the Republicans and get this passed.

Until you read the bill, and before you even hear all of the reasons why any Republicans object to the bill (from they themselves), this is an incredibly presumptuous thing to say.

And most of the big talking Republicans are disagreeing with Obama's "All or nothing" approach, and trying to use that to make some sort of blocking.

I think I know what you're talking about, but I'd like to hear your definition of this disagreement to an apparent 'all or nothing approach' forwarded by the President.

[DeathBlade/13.666]

First, the "Own words thing" and National Infrastructure Bank....Not what I was talking about, but ok...... I was speaking of the fact that in Obama's push for the New Jobs Act, he stated that many of the impletations are things that both parties wanted to see be done. Also he said that the majority of the bill was a combination of things that Democrats and Republicans both want, with only slight amounts of concession on certain topics. ie: taxing the rich.

Second, The "All or Nothing" approach thing was something I got from one of the Republican Representatives in an interview right off of CNN. And he was stating that he'd prefer to see that some of the bill be passed now, and other parts passed later; instead of passing the own thing now like Obama wants. (According to him)

[aether]

What the USA needs to do is apply for one of those consolidation loans advertised on TV.

Or

Completely wipe itself off the map and start again from scratch

[DeathBlade/13.666]

What the USA needs to do is apply for one of those consolidation loans advertised on TV.

Or

Completely wipe itself off the map and start again from scratch

Both ideas are easier said than done, and they probably won't work out in our favor.

[Cobra Commander]

What Obama is doing is fundamentally a sound idea. You can't brake your way up a hill. To make money, you need to spend money.

You can't spend your way out of debt or fornicate your way out of AIDS, either.

As for who's paying for this? Our great grand-children, that's who.

[Manhattan_Project_2000]

You can't spend your way out of debt or fornicate your way out of AIDS, either.

As for who's paying for this? Our great grand-children, that's who.

Actually, you can spend your way out of debt. To use an analogy, using a credit card to buy lottery tickets.

Now replace credit card with debt and lottery tickets with sound investments in the economy. It's how Keynesian economicswiki works.

[Cobra Commander]

Trillions of dollars later, it doesn't appear to be working.

[Manhattan_Project_2000]

Trillions of dollars later, it doesn't appear to be working.

Concerning our entire financial system didn't collapse in 2008-2009 as it appeared to be, I'd argue that it has been. The problems left now are more structural, but the Republicans would never allow anything that might "hurt" their precious big business, so instead we'll have to hope that throwing money at the problem will do something again.

[Cobra Commander]

If bailouts must be made, they should be made to the taxpayers, not to the corporations. If the problem is unemployment, then bring employment back. If the problem is that Joe Six Pack has no money, then give him some. If not directly, then bail out his debts - student loans, a third of a mortgage, etc.

However, continuing to reward the people that are selling us all down the river is never going to do any good. Bush tried it. Obama has done it. Where's the change?

I want to hurt big business, a lot. Not through regulation, but through taxation. I want any company that exists here that doesn't get say, 75% of its labor from the USA to be taxed and penalized into oblivion. I don't think there's any way out of the recession/unemployment than this. People have got to get back to work and make a decent living. Gov't could force this to happen, if it wanted.

I also have a huge problem with these companies not paying taxes. GE didn't pay any last year. I sure as hell did. Why? Why is GE getting favors and then sending more jobs to China?

I'm neither Republican or Democrat. I actually hate the Federal Gov't. A lot.

[Manhattan_Project_2000]

If bailouts must be made, they should be made to the taxpayers, not to the corporations. If the problem is unemployment, then bring employment back. If the problem is that Joe Six Pack has no money, then give him some. If not directly, then bail out his debts - student loans, a third of a mortgage, etc.

However, continuing to reward the people that are selling us all down the river is never going to do any good. Bush tried it. Obama has done it. Where's the change?

I want to hurt big business, a lot. Not through regulation, but through taxation. I want any company that exists here that doesn't get say, 75% of its labor from the USA to be taxed and penalized into oblivion. I don't think there's any way out of the recession/unemployment than this. People have got to get back to work and make a decent living. Gov't could force this to happen, if it wanted.

I also have a huge problem with these companies not paying taxes. GE didn't pay any last year. I sure as hell did. Why? Why is GE getting favors and then sending more jobs to China?

I'm neither Republican or Democrat. I actually hate the Federal Gov't. A lot.

Problem is, there is absolutely no way to force people to keep manufacturing jobs in the US, we don't have the Divine Right of Kings over the world.