More Stimulus Means Fewer Jobs

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by av8torntn, Dec 3, 2010.

  1. av8torntn

    av8torntn Well-Known Member

  2. moreluck

    moreluck golden ticket member

  3. bbsam

    bbsam Moderator Staff Member

    Are tax cuts not stimulus? If not, then how can they be instrumental in creating jobs?
     
  4. trplnkl

    trplnkl 555

    Technically cuts are stimulus but not directly. You're smart enough to know the difference and I'd bet you already do know.
    Sometimes tax cuts don't actually create jobs but prevents them from disappearing.
     
  5. bbsam

    bbsam Moderator Staff Member

    So Obama's claim that the stimulus package he passed prevented a huge number of jobs from disappearing is one that you agree with. Correct?
     
  6. trplnkl

    trplnkl 555

    I must have missed that news flash, the only thing I'm heard him say was how many jobs he created. I am happy that jobs were saved by his re-instating the Bush tax cuts. Where are we now on the cost of THE Stimulus Package per job created/saved?
     
  7. bbsam

    bbsam Moderator Staff Member

    Ah, but that's the beauty of the arguement. No one will ever know how many jobs were/are saved by the tax cuts nor can it be tallied how many jobs created/saved by the stimulus. It's like trying to make the claim that the "War on Terror" prevented x number of terrorist attacks.
     
  8. moreluck

    moreluck golden ticket member

    Funny, but Joe Biden has stated several times the number of jobs saved. Was he lying? The number changed with each instance.
     
  9. av8torntn

    av8torntn Well-Known Member

    While it is true that you, the president, and other socialists believe that the state owns all resources, I do not. You believe the state should be able to decide how much the individual should be allowed to have and I believe the individual should have the right to control how much the state is allowed to take. Our government has become nothing more than an obsticle to our freedom when it started as a way to protect our freedoms. No I do not see a tax cut as a stimulus I see freedom as the stimulus. Government by it's very nature is very inefficient. Everytime that I can think of when the government has tried to coerce markets there have been negative effects. You want to see growth destroy government as we know it and unleash freedom then you will see true growth. The position that I come from is the polar opposite of you. I find you extreme leftists very entertaining with all of your constantly changing excuses for why your policies do not work. All I would ask for out of government is the protection of our basic rights, a common defense of our nation, a stable value for our currency, and most importantly stable limited regulations. We should ditch all this central planning crap and allow individuals to plan their own lives.



    ETA: I'm sure there are probably misspelled words but it's late and the spell checker doesn't seem to work.
     
  10. bbsam

    bbsam Moderator Staff Member

    ETA? Or BTW? No matter. "Government by it's very nature is very inefficient." This government, yes. In fact several years ago it was in vogue for some to extol the efficiency of Germany's Nazi party of the 1930's. By it's construct, rather than it's nature ours is inefficient. The fierce differences of the Founding Fathers made this possible.
     
  11. trplnkl

    trplnkl 555

    Actually both could be tracked but getting the info wouldn't be easy to obtain. Whether you can trust them or not HS can tell you how many planned attacks have be stopped before they happen. A company that was on the verge of an employee layoff but didn't because of whatever reason could divulge the info of how many jobs were saved from their company. I read recently (sorry I don't remember where) that several companies stated they delayed layoffs because of the tax cuts. So yea, the info isn't readily available but that doesn't mean it hasn't happened. On the other hand, most jobs saved by The 0bama Stimulus should be easy to verify, they know who got the checks.
     
  12. bbsam

    bbsam Moderator Staff Member

    The information is a farce because it simply can't be known. The course of history changed and a company continued on it's original path. That is not to say that by merger or acquisition or new management the same could not have happened. It is the same with "War on Terror" claims. Could the same result not have been made without invading two nations? Maybe could have done it better. Maybe companies are struggling not because of tax burdens but poor management or even simply obsolescence of product or service.
     
  13. trplnkl

    trplnkl 555

    Maybe's can be thrown into any situation, maybes are nothing but maybes. When the owner/CEO (or whatever title) says that the decision was made to not do a layoff because of the tax cuts, I take it on face value.
     
  14. bbsam

    bbsam Moderator Staff Member

    Why on earth would you do that? When the CEO of John Deere says they need to have job cut backs because they are losing money, we know contract negotiations are going on. When Fred Smith threatens to cancel orders for jets, we know his true audience is congress. When Ken Lay pumped up Enron he was campaigning for his own pocket book. Do you believe everyting that comes out of Scott Davis' mouth? Why take them at their word?
     
  15. av8torntn

    av8torntn Well-Known Member


    No it is ETA(edit to add)

    I know you leftists love Nazi Germany but while you claim it was such an efficient government how do you explain the fact that even after killing millions of their citizens and placing even small children into military service there were massive food shortages, shortages of goods, and even the most basic services?
     
  16. bbsam

    bbsam Moderator Staff Member

    Efficient is not necessarily good, compassionate, decent, or even credible in any way shape or form. But then again, I wasn't the one looking for efficiency in government. A representative government, such as ours, is supposed to be messy, slow, and deliberate. And Germany before the start of the war, at the height of Nazi power was actually a stunningly vibrant economy.

    P.S. ETA. I had never heard of that before. Thank-you for the explanation.
     
  17. av8torntn

    av8torntn Well-Known Member


    Efficient is always good. In a free market efficiencies drive prices down and bring goods and services to the masses. Just one of many examples, since healthcare is on everyones mind, there are studies that show a direct relationship between increased regulations on hospitals and reductions in the numbers of hospital beds. It does no good for you to feel good about the costs of health care being spread among everyone if nobody has adequate access.

    Our federal government was meant to be slow in an effort to keep the people from giving away their liberties, to keep the lawmakers from taking liberties, and to protect the rights of the states. Much of this was lost with the 17th amendment.

    Of course Nazi power provided a short term vibrant economy. Eventually you run out of assets to steal and scarce resources to misallocate. A glaring problem with an inefficient centrally planned government.
     
  18. trplnkl

    trplnkl 555

    Those are not the owner's/ CEOs that I was talking about. I was referring to the companies that have...oh 100 or less employees. When it comes to Scott Davis and Fred Smith I assume everything out of their mouths mean something different from what they actually say, sorta like when politicians speak.