• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Stimulus didn't work?!

because partisanship and putting more money into the pockets of the super wealthy is FAR more important than honesty, integrity and what is actually good for the country.


You see it's more and more evident that republicans are simply on a rape and pillage expedition. They see America going down and they believe that they can move on. But they want to get as much as possible before they leave.
 
Saved the town of Kokomo 40,000 jobs? Which one of those 40,000 would be buying cars right now if they'd closed that plant?
 
Unabogie said:
Saved the town of Kokomo 40,000 jobs? Which one of those 40,000 would be buying cars right now if they'd closed that plant?
Click to expand...
The whole town only has 48,000 people...

At any rate, I thought the claim was Obama saved the auto industry?

If GM and Chrysler went bankrupt, do you think any other auto company would have bought many of those assets? Do you think Americans would stop buying automobiles? Do you think component parts for other auto manufacturers are made in a replicator somewhere?
 
WildCat said:
The whole town only has 48,000 people...

At any rate, I thought the claim was Obama saved the auto industry?

If GM and Chrysler went bankrupt, do you think any other auto company would have bought many of those assets? Do you think Americans would stop buying automobiles? Do you think component parts for other auto manufacturers are made in a replicator somewhere?
Click to expand...

I think if that plant would have closed, many ancillary jobs would have been lost in neighboring towns and from suppliers. I'm no economist, but that seems like Econ 101. But no, I don't think other companies would have bought those assets. No one was investing in anything. The economy was contracting (it's expanding now, just not fast enough to make up for all the lost jobs). I think that plant would have just gone dormant, and lots of jobs would be gone forever. Just like in many other parts of the country.

This was a success and it saved lots and lots of jobs.
 
Unabogie said:
I think if that plant would have closed, many ancillary jobs would have been lost in neighboring towns and from suppliers. I'm no economist, but that seems like Econ 101. But no, I don't think other companies would have bought those assets. No one was investing in anything. The economy was contracting (it's expanding now, just not fast enough to make up for all the lost jobs). I think that plant would have just gone dormant, and lots of jobs would be gone forever. Just like in many other parts of the country.

This was a success and it saved lots and lots of jobs.
Click to expand...
Ah, so speculation is all you have.
 
if the stimulus didn't work, why do Republicans want to end unemployment insurance for millions of Americans?

that's billions of dollars being pumped into the economy.
 
Thunder said:
if the stimulus didn't work, why do Republicans want to end unemployment insurance for millions of Americans?

that's billions of dollars being pumped into the economy.
Click to expand...

And where do you think that billions of dollars is coming from? Some magic stash?
 
Ziggurat said:
And where do you think that billions of dollars is coming from? Some magic stash?
Click to expand...

the same place the money to invade Iraq and Afghanistan came from.


oohhh!!!!!!!!! :D

what...its ok to increase the deficit to invade & occupy countries that never attacked us and had no recently made WMDs, but its NOT ok to increase the deficit to help Americans pay rent and feed their children?

fascinating.
 
Last edited:
Thunder said:
if the stimulus didn't work, why do Republicans want to end unemployment insurance for millions of Americans?

that's billions of dollars being pumped into the economy.
Click to expand...


No, it's not. It's money being taken from those who rightfully earned it, to be given to those who did not. Sure, the recipients of this handout now have more money to spend, but it is money that, if it hadn't been taken from those to whom it rightfully belongs, then those to whom it rightfully belongs would have had it to spend. Taking money from one person, and giving it to another does not “pump” more money into the economy.
 
Thunder said:
what...its ok to increase the deficit to invade & occupy countries that never attacked us and had no recently made WMDs, but its NOT ok to increase the deficit to help Americans pay rent and feed their children?

fascinating.
Click to expand...

Nice strawman you've got there.

If you want to argue that we should extend unemployment payments out of compassion, go ahead and make that argument. But that's a completely different argument than the one you made before about the economic stimulative effects of providing such benefits. Discounting one argument doesn't mean that other arguments don't exist, or can't be sufficient to justify your preference. Any fool knows that.

Oh....
... oh, I'm so sorry. That was terribly insensitive of me.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
No, it's not. It's money being taken from those who rightfully earned it, to be given to those who did not. Sure, the recipients of this handout now have more money to spend, but it is money that, if it hadn't been taken from those to whom it rightfully belongs, then those to whom it rightfully belongs would have had it to spend. Taking money from one person, and giving it to another does not “pump” more money into the economy.
Click to expand...

The point of contention here is the definition of "rightfully earned". Is inheriting a large amount of money a method of "rightfully earning" it? What about a stock investment that results in you getting extremely rich through pure luck? What about a private health board executive that gets paid a large bonus for successfully finding enough loopholes to allow them to refuse treatment to patients?

People in favour of wealth redistribution are, by and large, not in favour of taking money from those who earned it through pure hard graft, up to a point. They will usually support higher wages for doctors, scientists, engineers etc. They simply reject the premise that if you have money, you must have rightfully earned it, and they reject the premise that a salary of millions of dollars a year for CEOs is proportional to the amount of work those CEOs put in.
 
WildCat said:
Ah, so speculation is all you have.
Click to expand...

It's just as much speculation to claim the results would have been different.

Most economists agreed that the collapse of the big auto companies would have been pretty devastating.

I would probably have been devastating even as a matter of national security, since the parts manufacturers--dependent on U.S. factories--would have closed up, and so on.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
No, it's not. It's money being taken from those who rightfully earned it, to be given to those who did not.
Click to expand...

So the unemployed never paid into the system that allows them unemployment benefits, and therefore haven't rightfully earned it? Is that your contention?

Tea Partiers seem awfully quick to point out that even though they are against entitlement programs on principle, they deserve the entitlements from programs they've paid into.

But I guess, once again, we see that the Tea Party thinks certain are only for them.
 
Unabogie said:
I think if that plant would have closed, many ancillary jobs would have been lost in neighboring towns and from suppliers. I'm no economist
Click to expand...

That much is obvious.

but that seems like Econ 101. But no, I don't think other companies would have bought those assets. No one was investing in anything. The economy was contracting (it's expanding now, just not fast enough to make up for all the lost jobs). I think that plant would have just gone dormant, and lots of jobs would be gone forever. Just like in many other parts of the country.

This was a success and it saved lots and lots of jobs.
Click to expand...

On a micro basis, quite possibly. The town of Kokomo probably came out a winner. However, as WC points out, on a macro basis (i.e., the United States) the effect is nil. Someone would be making cars somewhere and unless those people in Kokomo are extremely inefficient, there would be a requirement for the same number of jobs to be filled.
 
Ziggurat said:
Nice strawman you've got there.

If you want to argue that we should extend unemployment payments out of compassion, go ahead and make that argument. But that's a completely different argument than the one you made before about the economic stimulative effects of providing such benefits.
Click to expand...

we should extend unemployment benefits for 2 reasons.

#1. its the right, moral, and caring thing to do.

#2. its good for the economy.

the only argument against this, is that it will raise the deficit. but that wasn't a problem when it came to invading two countries, and occupying them for years, now was it?
 
Bob Blaylock said:
No, it's not. It's money being taken from those who rightfully earned it, to be given to those who did not.
Click to expand...

I guess this means you are also against Federal college grants, welfare, and Medicaid?

how about VA medical care for life? how does serving in the army in Hawaii for a few years earn you guarunteed health care for life?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom