Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
irrelevant... you want T-BOND, not T-Bill rates.... geesh... dumbass
Jobs vs. Work
- Thread starter Dixie - In Memoriam
- Start date
irrelevant... you want T-BOND, not T-Bill rates.... geesh... dumbass
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Immanuel
Junior Member
Oh, I understand your context and I also understand that you cannot be taken seriously for anything you say, which is a shame because you used to make sense even when I did not agree with you. Now, I can't be sure if you are joking or what. My how times have changed and not necessarily for the better.
Giving this money to the corporations that run this country is not going to work. They'll go party just like AIG and the people who really need it are not going to see anything that doesn't trickle down
to them.Granted there is some small pittance going to welfare recipients (if that wasn't cut) but the big winners are the ones that have let us down in the first place.
This money would be better spent if it went straight to the people who need it. I'd also limit my "plan" which is nothing more than just an idea and not mine originally, to one per household. If you gave the money to 500,000 taxpayers and limit it to one per household, you will hit almost one in every three households in America, right? I have three brothers and my wife has two remaining sisters. That is six households right there. Add my parents (my wife's parents are both deceased) and the odds are that two of those households will have a nice Christmas, which in my family means we'd all have a nice Christmas.
Immie
Last edited:
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Oh, I understand your context and I also understand that you cannot be taken seriously for anything you say, which is a shame because you used to make sense even when I did not agree with you. Now, I can't be sure if you are joking or what. My how times have changed and not necessarily for the better.
Giving this money to the corporations that run this country is not going to work. They'll go party just like AIG and the people who really need it are not going to see anything that doesn't trickle down
Granted there is some small pittance going to welfare recipients (if that wasn't cut) but the big winners are the ones that have let us down in the first place.
This money would be better spent if it went straight to the people who need it. I'd also limit my "plan" which is nothing more than just an idea and not mine originally, to one per household. If you gave the money to 500,000 taxpayers and limit it to one per household, you will hit almost one in every three households in America, right? I have three brothers and my wife has two remaining sisters. That is six households right there. Add my parents (my wife's parents are both deceased) and the odds are that two of those households will have a nice Christmas, which in my family means we'd all have a nice Christmas.
Immie
Just an FYI... AIG did not entertain their employees... the event was for their top clients (brokers who sold their insurance products). Just thought I would pass that along....
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Feedback requested
meant to start new thread...
meant to start new thread...
Immanuel
Junior Member
Just an FYI... AIG did not entertain their employees... the event was for their top clients (brokers who sold their insurance products). Just thought I would pass that along....
And top management right? They didn't just send their brokers on a party alone, did they?
Immie
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Yes, my math does indeed work. What the hell makes you think China is compelled to loan us money at US T-Bond rates? I'm quite sure the interest rates are much higher, especially since the value of our dollar is going down faster than Madonna on Dennis Rodman! We can't actually calculate exact totals just yet, the liberals still have 3 years and 11 months left to spend, so we don't know what the final bill will be. If we currently run a budget deficit, it's not unrealistic to think, we aren't likely going to be paying the loan off anytime in the near future, so the interest will compound on itself, until we gain enough sanity to understand we eventually have to start paying the piper. Who knows how much interest will pile up on the debt before we even start to repay it, IF we are even able to do that?
It is true that the money has to be borrowed either way, but keep in mind, I am not advocating we give every taxpayer $250k, I simply said we COULD do that instead of what we're doing. The best thing we could do, is stop spending money we don't have, and offer some kind of incentive to the capitalist world, in order to encourage the production of real jobs for the future. At least with giving taxpayers $250k, you would be doing something that would stimulate the economy, and not just increasing the national debt with no return. There is at least a possibility the economic growth produced, would generate enough tax revenue to pay off the principle in our lifetime.
But you know what? Let's just whittle down my numbers to something pinheads can all agree on... a total dollar amount per taxpayer... say it's only $8k or $10k per taxpayer... would the economy be more stimulated with people like you and me having that money to spend, or with Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid "allocating" the money on behalf of the US Government?
That's just brilliant Jarhead. It's a classic example of what now passes for "debate" in liberal circles today. This board is full of this shit, and I think people are starting to grow tired of it and bored with it. If you are not capable of articulating an original thought or idea, and not willing to actually discuss the important topics of the day, why don't you go find a nice video game to play or something?
See... here's the thing I don't think you comprehend, you guys are in a 'leadership' role now. The time to hurl personal ad homenim attacks at your adversaries was over in November of last year. It simply doesn't work for you anymore. It was cute and witty back when you were trying to gain political ground, but now you are in a different position, and like your president, you are totally clueless on how to act. If this behavior continues, I predict your future as leaders will be short lived.
I'm putting you back on my ignore list, because frankly, I don't see any benefit in reading the same tired old insults from you day after day, and I can have intellectual conversations with others here, who seem to understand and comprehend the importance of the issues at hand.
Buh-bye!
Me personally, I am not in any kind of ladership roll. If I wanted to be Id run for congress. I dont want a leadership roll.
Are you talking about ad hom attacks like calling people pinheads? Or calling me Jarhead?
do you guys ever actually debate? or do you just solely throw out ad hominems?
debating with a little flava of insult is fun....but just to say....
you stupid head, nananananaanaana
they never debate. Just look at where Lorax has finally ended up in the climate debate. All he ever says is he won't argue it (translation: I am clueless, but the IPCC says...) and then goes on to paint anyone who argues the cause of climate warming as somehow uncaring about the environment and purposefully destroying the planet. Can't argue the topic so they throw up a strawman and beat it up real good. You can hear the squawking from the parrots.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
1) NO, your math does not work.
2) The reason it does not work has already been pointed out to you. With regards to future interest and compounding of interest.... With the stimulus package... they would have to spend $25 TRILLION to equate to the amount you are talking about giving to taxpayers. So NO we could NOT do that. It is not an option. Because while you may think it will create 'growth' in reality it will spark inflation to the point that everything is essentially worthless.
3) Now if you become more realistic, that is another discussion. Bringing the amount down to the $8-10k level brings the two amounts on par with each other. So which is going to be more effective at stimulating the economy? Obviously the answer does depend on where it is spent. If the government simply gives it out to those not paying taxes, then we would be better off all receiving the 8-10k. If the government spends the money on infrastructure buildout.... something that we have to do anyway... then that would be preferred to giving everyone 8-10k. The reason is that one has long term benefits, the other does not. Most people that get 8-10k are going to either save it or pay down debt. Because the economy would still look pretty frightening going forward.
you're just the quintessential no-content debater. Maybe if you actually could debate your religion you wouldn't have earned this title.
It's really weird when that happens in cyberspace. I've never been able to get my mind around it, but it does happen, and yes, it is creepy.
you two need to get lives. I feel sorry for you that you feel the need to believe I'm obsessed with you. Your life must be dreadfully empty for you to resort to making up fantasies to believe in.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
1) Yes it does. You are just stubborn and foolish.
2.) It's been shown how it does, in fact, my numbers are probably very conservative.
3.) The Government can never spend money to stimulate the economy better than consumers, because consumers always get more for their money. Government is woefully inefficient and full of graft, and much of the money would never be seen by the economy. There is no empirical evidence to show that building bridges and repaving the highways is any more effective at stimulating the economy than buying big screen tv's and new cars. Additionally, you are purposely creating an unemployment catastrophe by creating temporary work to replace lost jobs, and this will trump any temporary economic benefit of such a program.
You argue that giving the tax payer the money will only result in them paying down debt and saving, but would that not help "bailout" the banking and lending industry? Would that not cause interest rates to go down? Would that not encourage investment? People paying off debts, like their overdue mortgages... wouldn't that help "bailout" the housing industry? People paying their overdue car payments... wouldn't that help "bailout" the auto industry? With all of these people fat and happy, free of debt, and having nice little savings account cushions... they wouldn't be more inclined to make retail purchases? Go on vacations? SPEND their money from their REAL jobs? When all of that started happening, it wouldn't spark confidence in the market?
You see, the problem here is, you've been fed your daily dose of liberal koolaid, and it tells you to stand up and argue like a son-of-a-bitch for this farce and sham of a spending bill, and toss aside any rationality or common sense. That's exactly what you plan to do, by God! You will argue with me, you will make fun of me, you will insult me, but you won't stimulate the economy with socialism.
maineman
Banned
are you suggesting that building highway bridges does not create employment and economic activity?
Even assuming you are correct, inefficiencies don't really matter from a stimulus perspective. I mean, WWII (and most all wars for that matter) was terribly inefficient from an economic perspective (it is an inefficient allocation of resources to build things just to have them be blown up) but it sure served to stimulate the economy.