America is Not Broke - Only Congress Is and It Can Be Replaced

[SmarterthanYou]

It's absurd to say it won't help in the long-run. People getting back to work, even temporarily, pumps money into the economy. This, in turn, helps all kinds of businesses, who in turn start hiring on a more permanent basis once they start seeing improvement.

It's such a basic principle, and it's amazing how many people don't get it. What isn't helping our economy in the long-run is continued unemployment & lack of confidence.

that basic principle you're referring to has a name and it's called 'retarded', because only someone who's retarded would consider it a good thing to spend half a million dollars to get a company to hire two people at 45k a year and think it will contribute to the economy.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

That's a terrible translation. Did the conversation go over your head? It's so funny that you're always clamoring for "real debate."

I just described to you how it helped & can help in the long-term. I can't do anything about your ability to comprehend that; it's a sound economic theory, though. It's not just some fringe nonsense that I'm spouting off.

what you described is not supported by facts and reality. i explained that to you and your response was that i really don't know anything about the economy. there is no real debate with you, because when confronted with facts that do not support your opinion, you merely claim the other person is stupid. it is your MO. that is why i challenged you to a one on one with no insults. but as you've shown, you're incapable of actual debate when it doesn't go your way.

tax rebates can help the economy. cutting waste, military spending, some entitlement programs and putting some of that money into shovel ready jobs is the sound way to obtain long term economic growth. borrowing trillions upon trillions of dollars is not sound economic policy for long term growth. we are no longer talking billions, but trillions. like obama said, raising the debt ceiling HARMS american and our children. there are other ways besides borrowing money to boost the economy. but what i do know....according to you i don't know anything about the economy.

lol

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

the loopholes along with tax breaks for corps and those who go overseas need to stop. tax rates in the 90's did not hinder economic growth. i agree we need to cut spending. wisely though. not just slash and burn spending. revenues are every bit as important as spending cuts. without revenues we would not enjoy many of the benefits the government provides.

Okay, again.. you fall into the trap of buying in to the liberal propaganda here... "loopholes" like what, exactly? You haven't specified any. Did we not have "loopholes" in the 90s? I suspect we probably did. Tax breaks for corporations? Didn't we have those in the 90s as well? Which specific "tax breaks" are you referring to? Can we discuss specifics, or is this just "as a general rule" kind of an argument? Because, I would point out, most every tax break, incentive, or "loophole" was created by someone for some reason or purpose, and to address some problem, most likely. So if we remove these 'incentives' you are calling "loopholes and tax breaks" then what is the resulting problem which will return, and can we deal with that? We have to objectively look at specifics here, I have no way of knowing or judging if something is valid or legit, when it comes to cost/benefit analysis on this, but we need to talk about it at least, don't you agree?

Now... let me clue you in on what Liberals mean when they squeal about "loopholes and tax breaks" ...they mean things like your mortgage interest deduction and your 401k account. That's what they want to do away with, but they are telling you it's only for the richest of the rich and corporations... that's the LIE part. In order to generate serious revenues by eliminating "loopholes and tax breaks" it will involve much of the middle class giving up tax deductions. Which now... maybe that needs to happen? Maybe the middle class should give up mortgage interest deductions and whatnot, that's a good debate we should have, perhaps... but let's be honest about that, and not deceive the people with rhetoric and propaganda.

 

[Onceler]

what you described is not supported by facts and reality. i explained that to you and your response was that i really don't know anything about the economy. there is no real debate with you, because when confronted with facts that do not support your opinion, you merely claim the other person is stupid. it is your MO. that is why i challenged you to a one on one with no insults. but as you've shown, you're incapable of actual debate when it doesn't go your way.

tax rebates can help the economy. cutting waste, military spending, some entitlement programs and putting some of that money into shovel ready jobs is the sound way to obtain long term economic growth. borrowing trillions upon trillions of dollars is not sound economic policy for long term growth. we are no longer talking billions, but trillions. like obama said, raising the debt ceiling HARMS american and our children. there are other ways besides borrowing money to boost the economy. but what i do know....according to you i don't know anything about the economy.

lol

You're making an entirely different argument here, which is typical. And it's you who is ignoring the facts; I laid out how stimulus can help, and has helped, in the long-term. It's just not enough.

The truly funny thing is that much of the 1st stimulus WAS tax breaks & tax incentives; these things are "cost" items, any way you slice them. And trillions & trillions is huge hyperbole if you're talking stimulus. The 1st was under $1 trillion. We HAVE lost trillions & trillions in the market because of slow growth, so it would be accurate there.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

You're making an entirely different argument here, which is typical. And it's you who is ignoring the facts; I laid out how stimulus can help, and has helped, in the long-term. It's just not enough.

The truly funny thing is that much of the 1st stimulus WAS tax breaks & tax incentives; these things are "cost" items, any way you slice them. And trillions & trillions is huge hyperbole if you're talking stimulus. The 1st was under $1 trillion. We HAVE lost trillions & trillions in the market because of slow growth, so it would be accurate there.

my argument is the same. stop deflecting with your usual whiny crap when cornered. you're ignoring facts that the stimulus did not in fact help in the long term, which is in stark contrast to your claim it could help. the facts and reality do not support your assertion, no matter how many you say it COULD, the facts are it did not. was the majority tax breaks and incentives onceler? no. so once again, spending huge sums of borrowed money did not work in the long run. we haven't lost trillions due to slow growth, we lost it because people see the debt issue here and overseas as an issue that needs to be dealt with, but washington is merely playing politics and the president is a horrible leader. slow growth is a factor, but not the main factor. the dow didn't lose 2000 points in less than one month due to slow growth. my lord and you claim i don't know anything about the economy.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Okay, again.. you fall into the trap of buying in to the liberal propaganda here... "loopholes" like what, exactly? You haven't specified any. Did we not have "loopholes" in the 90s? I suspect we probably did. Tax breaks for corporations? Didn't we have those in the 90s as well? Which specific "tax breaks" are you referring to? Can we discuss specifics, or is this just "as a general rule" kind of an argument? Because, I would point out, most every tax break, incentive, or "loophole" was created by someone for some reason or purpose, and to address some problem, most likely. So if we remove these 'incentives' you are calling "loopholes and tax breaks" then what is the resulting problem which will return, and can we deal with that? We have to objectively look at specifics here, I have no way of knowing or judging if something is valid or legit, when it comes to cost/benefit analysis on this, but we need to talk about it at least, don't you agree?

Now... let me clue you in on what Liberals mean when they squeal about "loopholes and tax breaks" ...they mean things like your mortgage interest deduction and your 401k account. That's what they want to do away with, but they are telling you it's only for the richest of the rich and corporations... that's the LIE part. In order to generate serious revenues by eliminating "loopholes and tax breaks" it will involve much of the middle class giving up tax deductions. Which now... maybe that needs to happen? Maybe the middle class should give up mortgage interest deductions and whatnot, that's a good debate we should have, perhaps... but let's be honest about that, and not deceive the people with rhetoric and propaganda.

do you think SF is a liberal? because he also is against the loopholes.

 

[Onceler]

my argument is the same. stop deflecting with your usual whiny crap when cornered. you're ignoring facts that the stimulus did not in fact help in the long term, which is in stark contrast to your claim it could help. the facts and reality do not support your assertion, no matter how many you say it COULD, the facts are it did not. was the majority tax breaks and incentives onceler? no. so once again, spending huge sums of borrowed money did not work in the long run. we haven't lost trillions due to slow growth, we lost it because people see the debt issue here and overseas as an issue that needs to be dealt with, but washington is merely playing politics and the president is a horrible leader. slow growth is a factor, but not the main factor. the dow didn't lose 2000 points in less than one month due to slow growth. my lord and you claim i don't know anything about the economy.

I'm not cornered. It's insane how much you keep ignoring the facts. How can you claim it didn't help in the "long term"? You don't even understand the basic concept of indirect effects, or the effect the market has on employment. No one is saying that it fixed anything, but it stopped the bleeding, created jobs & lead to more business confidence as the market improved. It just wasn't enough.

Really, it's embarassing. Not as embarassing as bravs in an economic discussion, but pretty bad.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

I'm not cornered. It's insane how much you keep ignoring the facts. How can you claim it didn't help in the "long term"? You don't even understand the basic concept of indirect effects, or the effect the market has on employment. No one is saying that it fixed anything, but it stopped the bleeding, created jobs & lead to more business confidence as the market improved. It just wasn't enough.

Really, it's embarassing. Not as embarassing as bravs in an economic discussion, but pretty bad.

good lord. i've posted the facts now about half a dozen times and you ignore them each and everytime. whatever onceler, your routine is old. how in the world can you claim it worked in the long run when unemployment is still high, there is still uncertainty in the market, the debt level is now likely hurting the economy....but you're not saying it fixed anything, but that it helped stop the bleeding (which i said before it is ONLY a band-aid, so thanks for agreeing with me there) and somehow it has magically helped in the long run. unfortunately for you, the current economy and facts do not bear any truth to your comments. there were no shovel ready jobs. obama admitted that. instead the money went right back into the government coffers instead of going to shovel ready infrastructure jobs. had it done so, it is highly likely it could have helped in the long. building our infrastructure is usually always a good thing. our highway system made us the envy of the world in terms of transportation and moving goods which helps the economy. but obama didn't have those jobs because the was sent elsewhere.

hence -- the reality is the stimulus did not help in the long run. but i'm sure you'll be back and proclaim how dumb i am, how i ignore the facts, blah, blah, blah

 

[Onceler]

good lord. i've posted the facts now about half a dozen times and you ignore them each and everytime. whatever onceler, your routine is old. how in the world can you claim it worked in the long run when unemployment is still high, there is still uncertainty in the market, the debt level is now likely hurting the economy....but you're not saying it fixed anything, but that it helped stop the bleeding (which i said before it is ONLY a band-aid, so thanks for agreeing with me there) and somehow it has magically helped in the long run. unfortunately for you, the current economy and facts do not bear any truth to your comments. there were no shovel ready jobs. obama admitted that. instead the money went right back into the government coffers instead of going to shovel ready infrastructure jobs. had it done so, it is highly likely it could have helped in the long. building our infrastructure is usually always a good thing. our highway system made us the envy of the world in terms of transportation and moving goods which helps the economy. but obama didn't have those jobs because the was sent elsewhere.

hence -- the reality is the stimulus did not help in the long run. but i'm sure you'll be back and proclaim how dumb i am, how i ignore the facts, blah, blah, blah

Unemployment is still high, but are we adding jobs right now or losing them?

Were we adding jobs or losing them when the stimulus passed?

You're like a brick wall. If you don't want to listen, you won't. I'm the one who has posted facts here; you've just spewed opinions, based on nothing.

 

[Based Chad]

America has a long-term debt issue that should be dealt with through a mix of spending cuts and tax increases. America also has a short-term unemployment issue that should be dealt with through massive government borrowing and spending.

What makes you believe it's short term unemployment problem? It's the allowance of foreign slave labor on the international market that has decimated our job numbers, and nobody with actual power says shit about correcting our destructive and inhuman trade policy.

 

[Bonestorm]

What makes you believe it's short term unemployment problem? It's the allowance of foreign slave labor on the international market that has decimated our job numbers, and nobody with actual power says shit about correcting our destructive and inhuman trade policy.

Let me clarify. We face a potential debt problem 10 years from now. We face a serious unemployment problem right now. Better?

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Unemployment is still high, but are we adding jobs right now or losing them?

Were we adding jobs or losing them when the stimulus passed?

You're like a brick wall. If you don't want to listen, you won't. I'm the one who has posted facts here; you've just spewed opinions, based on nothing.

i've posted no facts? you're a waste of time.