Where Are the Jobs, Dammit!?

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Typical bullshite in absence of even a single practical example of reduced government spending during a recession having produced a singe job or spurred any fraction of a percent worth of economic growth. There's not one success to be pointed to going down that road. Not one. There are many that have resulted in even more joblessness and less economic growth and even greater deficits. But not a single one that has produced anything desirable.

To be clear, reduced federal spending will NOT produce jobs, I never said it would and I doubt anyone ever did. Please do not invent arguments because you cannot respond to the topic. If you have no response, then say so, or simply concede the argument.

Reduced Federal confiscation of money earned by private individuals and businesses WILL produce jobs and always has. More money in the hands of private individuals and businesses always produces more spending, more investment and more jobs. That is why 40% of Obama's "stimulus" was to not increase taxes (it would be wrong to say it was a tax "cut" the taxes had already been cut) Tax CUTS have always resulted in increased economic activity.

It did bring broadband to seven homes in Montana at a cost of $350,000 per home.

So how do I get a job installing broadband in Montana?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Get rid of that red slice and that green slice, and you just might balance that puppy.

How so? You'd then also give up the revenue sources that go along with these slices - that's about $900BN worth of revenue gone leaving you with $1.2TN in revenue to fund the remaining slices worth $2TN. It would also mean that you default on the SS trust fund - or on the American people to be more precise. The SS Trust fund has over $2.5TN worth of an accumulated surplus which you suppose we'd do what with? Default on the people so the super rich can get another round of tax cuts? Really? Do you just wipe their arses and shine their shoes or do you actually lick their feet?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Reduced Federal confiscation of money earned by private individuals and businesses WILL produce jobs and always has.

Always has? Were you asleep or suffering from attention deficit disorder during the fist economic cycle of the 21st century? What happened from 2001 - 2008? Tax rates were lowered significantly - to the tune of several trillion dollars over a decade. But here we have lower taxes and - coincidentally - the lowest ever job creation on record along with the first ever negative median household income development in any economic cycle. What happened to your theory?

[웃 910]

The SS Trust fund has over $2.5TN worth of an accumulated surplus which you suppose we'd do what with?

This was years ago and at a community college but the professor of an intermediate econ class I had was showing us the numbers of the surpluses from SS receipts. And he said that they don't go in a trust fund, they don't pay down the debt, the excess is spent...Was he wrong?

[Dan J 277]

This was years ago and at a community college but the professor of an intermediate econ class I had was showing us the numbers of the surpluses from SS receipts. And he said that they don't go in a trust fund, they don't pay down the debt, the excess is spent...Was he wrong?

The government (general fund) still owes it to the social security trust fund. If the government defaults and doesn't pay pack its debts, then there is a problem.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The government (general fund) still owes it to the social security trust fund. If the government defaults and doesn't pay pack its debts, then there is a problem.

Exactly.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

This was years ago and at a community college but the professor of an intermediate econ class I had was showing us the numbers of the surpluses from SS receipts. And he said that they don't go in a trust fund, they don't pay down the debt, the excess is spent...Was he wrong?

No, he wasn't wrong. Did you think that there's a box somewhere that holds the excess funds? The excess funds are invested in what still is the safest investment on earth - US treasuries. That's the only thing the excess funds can be invested in.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

This was years ago and at a community college but the professor of an intermediate econ class I had was showing us the numbers of the surpluses from SS receipts. And he said that they don't go in a trust fund, they don't pay down the debt, the excess is spent...Was he wrong?

and A decreasing portion of the National Debt is money the government owes itself. Sometimes the revenues raised for these programs is in surplus. Then by law, the government must either spend the excess, or refund the excess to the taxpayers. If the excess is spent, it contributes to the debt, but not the annual deficit. At other times, like currently with Social Security and portions of Medicare, certain programs are in deficit, and must be partially funded from the General Fund, or reduce expenditures (benefits). By refunding that portion of the debt, debt is transferred to general obligations, and again would not be shown as revenue, since it is really just an accounting exercise

[mawilson 2,133]

No, he wasn't wrong. Did you think that there's a box somewhere that holds the excess funds? The excess funds are invested in what still is the safest investment on earth - US treasuries. That's the only thing the excess funds can be invested in.

And that's just wrong. It's like spending your savings and calling it an "investment" because you made a promise to pay yourself back with interest.

We would have been better off investing in Madoff's fund - at least we would have recovered some of that money.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

And that's just wrong. It's like spending your savings and calling it an "investment" because you made a promise to pay yourself back with interest.

That all depends on what you spend that money on. There are some good cases to be made for what you just described. Take my "investment" into a new, energy efficient A/C unit, for example. Yes, I paid that out of my savings account - i.e. I spent some of my savings. Post installation, I now spend less on my electric bill every month and have, thus, been able to put extra money back into my savings account. The unit is now paid for (i.e. the balance taken out a little over 2 years ago is back in that account), still has 7+ years of full warranty on it and continues to save me money each and every month letting me continue to put extra money aside - call that the interest. What's wrong with that?

[luckytxn 2,264]

The Socialists are grinning right now knowing that they have the opportunity to spend even more to save us. I am betting they are in the back rooms now dividing up the pie among their now and future campaign funders. Since many know this is the death knell for them and they will be thrown out of office they are making plans on what company they are going to sit on the boards with a nice and cushy salary for life.

They have to know that there is no way that one can spend your way out of financial meltdown. It has never been done in history and never will.

[Zero Sum 305]

Stimulus money for ultra rich JOB CREATERS, as Rep. Boehner reminded us of these people's importance in our society in relation to the Democrats' strategy to want to increase their tax rates closer to previous rates, really ticked off the ultra right wing when it was supported by the Democrats. But by promoting for tax breaks for the rich JOB CREATERS, they are continuing the very same hypocrisy they're well known for.

Sorry, but I just noticed He-Man is on TV.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

They have to know that there is no way that one can spend your way out of financial meltdown. It has never been done in history and never will.

Well, we've kind of just done that. What hasn't ever worked is the creation of jobs by lavishing tax cuts on the supposed job creators. We've done that for the last decade now. Even added to those tax cuts. Where the jobs? Bottom line, that strategery has been an abysmal failure and is hence exactly what the Republicans want to repeat.

[웃 910]

They have to know that there is no way that one can spend your way out of financial meltdown. It has never been done in history and never will.

So then you should be furious with Reagan, Bush 1, and the worst, Bush 2? Right?

[luckytxn 2,264]

So then you should be furious with Reagan, Bush 1, and the worst, Bush 2? Right?

Bingo. They did teach me there was no difference between the parties. And guess what? Spending lots of money did not pull us out of the depression. In fact it made it worse and deepened it. We are not going to spend our way out of this mess. It is a means only for the ones in charge of our spending to get the maximum amount of money to their fave donors.