Obama spanks Wall Street.

[TheMercenary]

No that is bull crap. It was Bush against the Demoncratically controlled Congress. That was the crux of the constant struggle to get things done. Pelosi and Reid own it. They have owned the failures of Congress for the last two years. If things have not been done on the Congressional side of the house it is in their lap no matter how much they traditionally want to pass the buck. The Demoncrats will own the responsibility of the failures of Congress for the last two years and that includes their failures to compromise with the minority. Sorry, that is the way it is.

[TGRR]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

No that is bull crap. It was Bush against the Demoncratically controlled Congress. That was the crux of the constant struggle to get things done. Pelosi and Reid own it. They have owned the failures of Congress for the last two years. If things have not been done on the Congressional side of the house it is in their lap no matter how much they traditionally want to pass the buck. The Demoncrats will own the responsibility of the failures of Congress for the last two years and that includes their failures to compromise with the minority. Sorry, that is the way it is.

And we all know that when the GOP controlled all 3 branches of government, all bad things and irresponsible spending had ceased.

Face facts, Merc...there is no actual difference between the parties.

Originally Posted by TGRR

]...
Face facts, Merc...there is no actual difference between the parties.

I wouldnt go that far.

There may be little difference in the manner in which they act, but there are significant differences in their respective policy approaches to government.

The stimulus bill is a perfect example. The Democrats want to spend to create jobs, potentially over 3 million in 18 months according to the CBO...and the Republicans want to lower taxes to create jobs, the failed economic policy of Bush and the previous Republican Congresses, with the near $trillion in tax cuts in 01 and 03.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

I wouldnt go that far.

There may be little difference in the manner in which they act, but there are significant differences in their respective policy approaches to government.

The stimulus bill is a perfect example. The Democrats want to spend to create jobs, potentially over 3 million in 18 months according to the CBO...and the Republicans want to lower taxes to create jobs, the failed economic policy of Bush and the previous Republican Congresses, with the near $trillion in tax cuts in 01 and 03.

I would disagree. This is a social programs bill cloaked in a simulus package. You are only talking about smalll portions of the bill. Many jobs are not expected to be created for over 4 years from now. How the hell does that help the millions of poor sods out of work NOW? The failure of the Demoncratically controlled Congress for the last two years, you know, that body of government that controls the purse string of our economy, has screwed this up royally. Erase the BS pork and I will support the bill completely. Currently a group of Congressmen from both parties have finally called a truce are are trying to do the right thing, those people are the real workers for the people. Good on them.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

I would disagree. This is a social programs bill cloaked in a simulus package. You are only talking about smalll portions of the bill. Many jobs are not expected to be created for over 4 years from now. How the hell does that help the millions of poor sods out of work NOW? The failure of the Demoncratically controlled Congress for the last two years, you know, that body of government that controls the purse string of our economy, has screwed this up royally. Erase the BS pork and I will support the bill completely. Currently a group of Congressmen from both parties have finally called a truce are are trying to do the right thing, those people are the real workers for the people. Good on them.

You are ignoring the CBO report and the facts on the job creation impact of the current draft of bill that is based more on spending (about 60%) than tax cuts (about 40%).

In fact, more jobs could probably be created in the short term if there was more spending (on infrastructure projects, etc) and less tax cuts, but the Democrats compromised by accepting tax cuts to make it more bi-partisan. Tax cuts have never produced jobs in the short term., unless you have data that would suggest otherwise...cite please.

I would urge you to take the time to look at the CBO analysis of the bill in its present form ...nearly 2/3 of the funds will be expended in 18 months and potentially creating more than 3 million jobs..there are no guarantees, economics is not an exact science. Much of the rest is to ensure longer term job stability.

Perhaps you have other objective data....cite please!

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

nearly 2/3 of the funds will be expended in 18 months and potentially creating more than 3 million jobs...

Where's the beef?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

Tax cuts have never produced jobs in the short term., unless you have data that would suggest otherwise...cite please.

I never stated they would. They do how ever save people money and keeps money in the pocket of the taxpayer. If you think other wise please tell me how I am wrong on that.

I would urge you to take the time to look at the CBO analysis of the bill in its present form ...nearly 2/3 of the funds will be expended in 18 months and potentially creating more than 3 million jobs..there are no guarantees, economics is not an exact science. Much of the rest is to ensure longer term job stability.

Perhaps you have other objective data....cite please!

How does citation work out for ya?

Fact Check . org

FACT CHECK: Will stimulus create more than 3 million jobs like Democrats say? Maybe not
By ALAN FRAM , Associated Press

WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama and congressional Democrats say it nearly every day: Their huge economic stimulus package must be rushed to passage because it will create or save 3 million to 4 million jobs.

In fact, those figures are uncertain enough that even some economists who produced them are basically saying: We gave it our best shot.

"The models are based on historic experience," said Mark Zandi, referring to formulas he and other economists use to predict economic behavior. "And we're outside anything we've experienced historically. We're completely in a world we don't understand and know."

Zandi is chief economist at Moody's Economy.com of West Chester, Pa. His projection last week that the House-passed stimulus measure would create 3 million jobs by the end of 2010 — scaled down from a 4 million estimate he made days earlier — have been cited repeatedly by Democrats as justification for the $819 billion legislation.

"Yes, there's a high level of uncertainty," said Zandi, a Democrat who advised Republican presidential candidate John McCain last year. "But my estimates are as good as you're going to get, and they're good enough to be useful in trying to evaluate whether we should do this or not."

Democrats also frequently cite an early January estimate by two economists working for Obama. Christina Romer and Jared Bernstein, now top White House economic advisers, said a plan roughly similar to the House-passed version would yield 3.3 million to 4.1 million jobs by late 2010 that wouldn't otherwise exist — but added a catch.

"There is considerable uncertainty in our estimates," their report said, warning that the package's impact on the economy and job creation "are hard to estimate precisely."

Separately, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office — lawmakers' official fiscal analyst — estimates that by the end of 2010, the House bill would mean 1.2 million to 3.6 million additional jobs.

The economists' caution highlights the difficulty of gauging how the stimulus would affect an ailing but still huge $14 trillion economy that is shedding 500,000 jobs a month.

There's little doubt the measure — which could grow to $900 billion when the Senate completes its version soon — would help ease unemployment from its sheer size alone. The question is: By how much?

To answer that, economists generally use a two-step process.

First they project how much the legislation would make the economy grow. Then they predict how many jobs that growth would create.

The second part is less complicated because economists tend to rely on rules of thumb. The White House, for example, assumed that each 1 percent increase in the economy's size would produce 1 million jobs.

The initial calculation — how much will the stimulus make the economy grow — is tougher. To make it, economists rely on a mix of facts and assumptions.

They know how much money the House bill contains: $30 billion for road construction, $87 billion to help states pay for Medicaid, $145 billion for $500-per-worker tax breaks, and other components.

From there, though, they make educated guesses, based partly on economic data compiled over many decades.

How quickly will federal agencies spend their stimulus money? Will state and local governments use their shares to avoid firing workers, provide services, cut taxes or as nest eggs? When will people receive tax cuts, and will they spend or save them? How much economic growth does a dollar spent on road-building produce, compared to a dollar used to extend unemployment benefits?

In many instances, economists have slightly different answers, which translate to bigger differences when they produce their job estimates.

"One of the biggest problems for these models is, are you drawing the right conclusions from the past" about future behavior, said Nigel Gault, chief U.S. economist for Global Insight of Lexington, Mass. "Or are there ways in which things have changed in the world?"

Benefit payments, such as aid to the poor, and tax cuts can move quickly to people. Government purchases of goods and services can take longer, especially construction projects which can take years to complete.

But generally, economists consider government spending more reliable than tax cuts for creating jobs. That's because people and businesses sometimes save part or all of their tax cuts instead of spending them, especially if money is tight.

Underscoring how delicate these projections are, on Jan. 21 Zandi predicted the House bill would create 4 million jobs, based on assumptions that all its money would be spent by the end of 2010.

Days later, the Congressional Budget Office projected that more than one-third of the bill's spending and tax cuts would not occur until after 2010. In response, Zandi dropped his job creation estimate to 3 million.

The economists' caution highlights the difficulty of gauging how the stimulus would affect an ailing but still huge $14 trillion economy that is shedding 500,000 jobs a month.

There's little doubt the measure — which could grow to $900 billion when the Senate completes its version soon — would help ease unemployment from its sheer size alone. The question is: By how much?

To answer that, economists generally use a two-step process.

First they project how much the legislation would make the economy grow. Then they predict how many jobs that growth would create.

The second part is less complicated because economists tend to rely on rules of thumb. The White House, for example, assumed that each 1 percent increase in the economy's size would produce 1 million jobs.

The initial calculation — how much will the stimulus make the economy grow — is tougher. To make it, economists rely on a mix of facts and assumptions.

They know how much money the House bill contains: $30 billion for road construction, $87 billion to help states pay for Medicaid, $145 billion for $500-per-worker tax breaks, and other components.

From there, though, they make educated guesses, based partly on economic data compiled over many decades.

How quickly will federal agencies spend their stimulus money? Will state and local governments use their shares to avoid firing workers, provide services, cut taxes or as nest eggs? When will people receive tax cuts, and will they spend or save them? How much economic growth does a dollar spent on road-building produce, compared to a dollar used to extend unemployment benefits?

In many instances, economists have slightly different answers, which translate to bigger differences when they produce their job estimates.

"One of the biggest problems for these models is, are you drawing the right conclusions from the past" about future behavior, said Nigel Gault, chief U.S. economist for Global Insight of Lexington, Mass. "Or are there ways in which things have changed in the world?"

Benefit payments, such as aid to the poor, and tax cuts can move quickly to people. Government purchases of goods and services can take longer, especially construction projects which can take years to complete.

But generally, economists consider government spending more reliable than tax cuts for creating jobs. That's because people and businesses sometimes save part or all of their tax cuts instead of spending them, especially if money is tight.

Underscoring how delicate these projections are, on Jan. 21 Zandi predicted the House bill would create 4 million jobs, based on assumptions that all its money would be spent by the end of 2010.

Days later, the Congressional Budget Office projected that more than one-third of the bill's spending and tax cuts would not occur until after 2010. In response, Zandi dropped his job creation estimate to 3 million.

http://www.startribune.com/politics/38809947.html

As this guy said:

Last update: February 2, 2009 - 12:28 PM
Featured comment

in Other Words
It's all BS. The great majority of money will just move EXISTING jobs from the private to public sector. Unions are paid off,trial lawyers … read more are paid off, Democratic states get paid off.Certainly a few jobs may result fron the spending, but not until year 2013 when The Obama will be the one unemployed.

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

...in Other Words
It's all BS. The great majority of money will just move EXISTING jobs from the private to public sector. Unions are paid off,trial lawyers … read more are paid off, Democratic states get paid off.Certainly a few jobs may result fron the spending, but not until year 2013 when The Obama will be the one unemployed.

ummmm, bullshit, and you know it. You KNOW people who are out of work and desperately need a job. So how would giving money to the state, so they can do some of the construction jobs planned, take away existing jobs? These people have been looking for a steady job for months. There are none!

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

I would disagree. This is a social programs bill cloaked in a simulus package. You are only talking about smalll portions of the bill. Many jobs are not expected to be created for over 4 years from now. How the hell does that help the millions of poor sods out of work NOW? The failure of the Demoncratically controlled Congress for the last two years, you know, that body of government that controls the purse string of our economy, has screwed this up royally. Erase the BS pork and I will support the bill completely. Currently a group of Congressmen from both parties have finally called a truce are are trying to do the right thing, those people are the real workers for the people. Good on them.

Gee Merc, I know you are smarter than this, and trying to blame this on democrats, who have been completely powerless, even though they had a small majority for the past two years, is fucking insane, and you KNOW it is insane.

It works like this: if people aren't spending money, because they've lost their jobs, or they're afraid of losing their jobs, then companies and businesses lose money. They can't keep producing things (or buying things to supply to people) because people aren't buying. So, businesses continue to lay people off, or worse, they close their doors. If NO ONE is buying anything, then the government can help by pumping money into the economy. If it's in the form of food stamps or unemployment, there is a return of something like $1.75 for every dollar spent (according to Moody's). If it's in the form of tax cuts, it's more like .50 on the dollar (or less), give or take, depending on what kind of tax cut it is (I believe there was one tax that would actually help, but I can't remember what it was called). Giving money to poor people or lower income people puts money into the economy more than giving it to anyone else, because they will spend it. They have to. Middle class people (or wealthier people) are more likely to save it, which isn't usually a bad thing, but at the moment, we need people to buy things. Otherwise, more jobs are lost. Giving the money to states (which many are broke or nearly broke) will ultimately help save jobs, because they are having to cut their budgets, which means laying off people like cops and teachers (hello! education spending! which repubs want to cut out of the bill). But republicans don't want to give money to the states either. They don't want to give money to fund education. They don't want ANY spending. All they want is friggin' tax cuts for the wealthy. The truth is, spending DOES stimulate the economy, no matter what form it takes.

I have a question for all those republicans who think government should play no part in anything, and that government should be kept really, really small, what the hell are you doing in a job that has no place in society? I mean really, they want to get rid of almost all government, hey, them first.

[TGRR]

Originally Posted by Redux

I wouldnt go that far.

There may be little difference in the manner in which they act, but there are significant differences in their respective policy approaches to government.

They both hate rights. The Dems attack amendments II and X first, and the GOP attacks I, IV, and IX before the others, but they both hate the fact that they can't (at least yet) jam steering wheels up the arse of the electorate and drive it around.

They're both incompetent (thank God).

They both concentrate on handing the treasury over to their lobbyists.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by TGRR

And we all know that when the GOP controlled all 3 branches of government, all bad things and irresponsible spending had ceased.

Face facts, Merc...there is no actual difference between the parties.

I would agree.

[slang]

Originally Posted by TGRR

Face facts, Merc...there is no actual difference between the parties.

Very little it seems.

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

The executive salary caps (basically no more than $500,000 for any company accepting government money.....

Ok. What does this mean?

"The restrictions will most affect large companies that receive "exceptional assistance," such as Citigroup.

The struggling banking giant has taken about $45 billion from the government's Troubled Asset Relief Program."

Does it mean that there are no restrictions to say, a renown failing newspaper that might accept just 1 billion in US taxpayer money? Is one billion "exceptional assistance" and will the cap effect the executives of the company that accepts the cash?