Remember When......
- Thread starter signalmankenneth
- Start date
Billy the Great Khan
Uwaa OmO
Which one of those things built my house, Hired me for a job, built my car, or paid the taxes necessary for those social programs?
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
It is easy, but irrelevant, to understand how someone might object to any particular item in the federal budget, whether it is the war in Afghanistan, ethanol subsidies, Social Security benefits, or building bridges to nowhere.
But even building bridges to nowhere would create jobs, not destroy them, as the congressman from nowhere knows.
To be sure, that is not a valid argument for building them.
Dumb public spending deserves to be rejected—but not because it kills jobs.
The generic conservative view that government is "too big" in some abstract sense leads to a strong predisposition against spending.
OK. But the question remains: How can the government destroy jobs by either hiring people directly or buying things from private companies?
For example, how is it that public purchases of computers destroy jobs but private purchases of computers create them?
One possible answer is that the taxes necessary to pay for the government spending destroy more jobs than the spending creates.
That's a logical possibility, although it would require extremely inept choices of how to spend the money and how to raise the revenue.
But tax-financed spending is not what's at issue today.
The current debate is about deficit spending: raising spending without raising taxes.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303635604576392023187860688.html
But even building bridges to nowhere would create jobs, not destroy them, as the congressman from nowhere knows.
To be sure, that is not a valid argument for building them.
Dumb public spending deserves to be rejected—but not because it kills jobs.
The generic conservative view that government is "too big" in some abstract sense leads to a strong predisposition against spending.
OK. But the question remains: How can the government destroy jobs by either hiring people directly or buying things from private companies?
For example, how is it that public purchases of computers destroy jobs but private purchases of computers create them?
One possible answer is that the taxes necessary to pay for the government spending destroy more jobs than the spending creates.
That's a logical possibility, although it would require extremely inept choices of how to spend the money and how to raise the revenue.
But tax-financed spending is not what's at issue today.
The current debate is about deficit spending: raising spending without raising taxes.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303635604576392023187860688.html
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
what?
is kenneth pissed because GM paid no taxes?
is kenneth pissed because GM paid no taxes?
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
Some people still claim that fiscal stimulus won't create jobs.
Spending cuts, they insist, are the route to higher employment, and ideas have consequences.
One possibly frightening consequence is that our limping economy might have one of its two crutches, fiscal policy, kicked out from under it in an orgy of premature expenditure cutting.
Given the current jobs emergency, that would be tragic.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303635604576392023187860688.html
Spending cuts, they insist, are the route to higher employment, and ideas have consequences.
One possibly frightening consequence is that our limping economy might have one of its two crutches, fiscal policy, kicked out from under it in an orgy of premature expenditure cutting.
Given the current jobs emergency, that would be tragic.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303635604576392023187860688.html
Billy the Great Khan
Uwaa OmO
Clearly we need to dismantle GM and put everyone who works there out on the streets.