View Full Version : Obama: Everything in this Bill Will Be Paid For
Skilero
09-08-2011, 09:24 PM
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/communities/theoval/post/2009/10/620000005/1
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
09-08-2011, 09:39 PM
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
09-08-2011, 09:59 PM
We wont and as for who's paying for it, that'd be me and everyone else who pays taxes.
Skilero
09-09-2011, 06:28 AM
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.
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
09-09-2011, 09:57 AM
Skillero Doubt the defense budget will get cut since Congress loves wasting money there.
Skylar1
09-09-2011, 10:53 AM
If people aren't working, there is no money being made. plain and simple.
GameGeeks
09-09-2011, 11:06 AM
And the Republicans could care less about that. As long as the rich get all the money then they're happy.
Skylar1
09-09-2011, 11:15 AM
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
09-09-2011, 10:31 PM
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
09-09-2011, 10:41 PM
It doesn't matter that Obama takes our money; the entire government spends our tax dollars on useless shit, 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.
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?
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
09-10-2011, 10:33 PM
Obama sucks, and I think that's the lesson we learned.
DeathBlade/13.666
09-11-2011, 08:21 AM
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
09-11-2011, 09:55 AM
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
09-18-2011, 04:22 PM
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
09-20-2011, 02:03 PM
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
09-20-2011, 09:07 PM
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
09-20-2011, 10:51 PM
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
09-21-2011, 12:28 AM
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 economics works.
Cobra Commander
09-21-2011, 02:02 AM
Trillions of dollars later, it doesn't appear to be working.
Manhattan_Project_2000
09-21-2011, 02:31 AM
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
09-21-2011, 06:34 PM
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
09-21-2011, 07:12 PM
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.
Cobra Commander
09-22-2011, 03:04 AM
Sure there is. We don't need to rule the world, just regulate our own industry better. If it was better for profits to hire Americans than it would be done. Right now, obviously, they can pay someone fifty cents a day or something in China rather than pay someone a livable wage here. There ought to be penalties for that. They'll only understand when it hurts their wallet. Become a protectionist economy, rather than embracing free trade.
DeathBlade/13.666
09-22-2011, 08:39 PM
Actually, Republicans and some Democrats won't settle on the Government ruling corporations like that. But what can be done is allowing foreign companies to further explore out-sourcing into the American public. We're out-sourcing to other countries, and many others are out-sourcing to us. Then we get jobs building Toyota's and Hyundai's, as well as being telemarketer's and tech-support for people in Europe and Asia.
American owned, made by China. Chinese Owned, made by America. Yay Jobs! lol
aether
09-23-2011, 12:10 PM
And that is the major problem living within a decent democratic society industry just cannot handle paying alot of people a minimum wage hence why they out-source. So if you want to keep your industry take away your human rights and work like slaves
TheAsterisk!
09-23-2011, 05:48 PM
We wont and as for who's paying for it, that'd be me and everyone else who pays taxes.
Actually, given how the Federal Reserve likes to print money and slowly drive inflation whenever- well, just whenever- it's not just everyone who pays formalized taxes, but it also includes everyone who uses U.S. currency.
Arrisu
09-23-2011, 08:01 PM
Actually, Republicans and some Democrats won't settle on the Government ruling corporations like that. But what can be done is allowing foreign companies to further explore out-sourcing into the American public. We're out-sourcing to other countries, and many others are out-sourcing to us. Then we get jobs building Toyota's and Hyundai's, as well as being telemarketer's and tech-support for people in Europe and Asia.
American owned, made by China. Chinese Owned, made by America. Yay Jobs! lol
That wouldn't be beneficial for cooperations and businesses in China, since the currency is totally not on the same level as America. It would be more expensive to out-source to America, for Chinese businesses. I agree with Cobra Commander. America should only use american citizens for large businesses or else face heavy, HEAVY taxes.
Otherwise you guys can always immagrate here, in Canada. n_n
Skilero
09-23-2011, 09:29 PM
It's Keynesian economics. Love it or hate it, it works.
An issue with a lot of Modern-day Keynesian theorists:
The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money[/U], Chapter 22 (http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/economics/keynes/general-theory/ch22.htm#iv )]
Moreover, I should readily concede that the wisest course is to advance on both fronts at once. Whilst aiming at a socially controlled rate
of investment with a view to a progressive decline in the marginal efficiency of capital, I should support at the same time all sorts of
policies for increasing the propensity to consume. For it is unlikely that full employment can be maintained, whatever we may do about
investment, with the existing propensity to consume. There is room, therefore, for both policies to operate together; — to promote
investment and, at the same time, to promote consumption, not merely to the level which with the existing propensity to consume would
correspond to the increased investment, but to a higher level still.
Keynes supported policies that encourage people to consume. How do you create effective policies that encourage people to spend money on products at 'a higher level' than those policies that invest in the economy? What sort of policy generates private-sector consumption to such an effect? Keynes' beliefs aren't incorrect in the quoted statement, but they've been misinterpreted by contemporary Keynesian economists and believers. It is the "wisest course" to "advance on both fronts at once", so why is it that Keynesian policy is being defined as just spending money on the economy (albeit spending without keeping up with 'propensity to consume')? That, as it stands, is not the wisest economic course - even for Keynes himself.
--------------------------
So President Obama's jobs bill does have tax cuts, which engages a propensity to consume in the economy (However, tax cuts weren't offered up much, if at all, in the previous stimulus measures presented by the Obama administration. We should not assume that Keynes would've been encouraged by the acts. I digress - we can't do anything about the past and can only work towards the future with what we have now.); but does the propensity of consumption in the U.S. economy - including the factor of tax cuts - exceed the rate of investment going into the economy out of this bill?
As I deduce, this bill places significant importance in a newly-formed sect of government - a 'National Infrastructure Bank'. This will be a major component of the 'investment' factor of this bill.
Taking into account what Keynes had said before about consumption propensity in the economy: How long will the tax cuts from this bill last for? And given that, will this Infrastructure Bank simply dissolve soon after these tariff breaks are spent? Because if the spending isn't directly related to and measured against the amount of tax cuts, then the bill could easily fail - not only on my own beliefs, but according to Keynes' judgement of a 'wise' course as well.
I'd also like for it to be recognized that this is all under the premise that we simply have no room to change our laws for businesses or industry in the United States. Quite obviously, a number of things can be changed in the United States economy's management to encourage consumption that can work with the investment presented by the bill - adding a much higher chance of success for this jobs bill. Such things should actually be supplementary to the bill, because solely in them may a prospective recovery for the economy be possible.
As it stands, this bill could either fix many problems in the U.S. economy or need to be repealed to prevent it from doing nothing to the economy and sucking the government's money into a black pit. It's how these debates around the bill are handled that decide the true outcome.
Notice: I'm assuming that outlines I've read of the bill from various media sources and the government itself are accurate. Obviously, the common provisions that are snuck into the bill will have to be weeded out, and the basis of my argument is centered around the core of this bill and not said provisions.
Powered by vBulletin™ Version 4.1.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.