They can build the wall between Mexico and the US.
They're a labor source we're already paying, and according to you they actually really truely do want to work. Win-win for everyone involved.
OK, have you found something for them to do? How are you going to pay for them to do that without stimulus?
They can build the wall between Mexico and the US.
They're a labor source we're already paying, and according to you they actually really truely do want to work. Win-win for everyone involved.
Republicans want to take money OUT of stimulus to pay for unemployment. That's why they are blocking the unemployment bill.
Broken record?
So you would rather use the money for stimulus to hire people to do infrastructure projects instead of paying them unemployment?
That is the opposite of what Republicans want to do, which is take money out of stimulus to pay for unemployment.
What happened to the bailouts fixing everything? Starting to think we've been had!
No, Republicans don't want to authorize any more spending, past the ridiculous amounts of spending that have already been authorized. Stimulus has not worked the way it's been done, so why waste the money twice when you can just use the already wasted money.
Small businesses drive the economy and employ the majority of domestic workers. For stimulus to have worked, it needed to target small businesses. It didn't. As such, it failed to do anything constructive and unemployment is still rising. Paying people to continue to sit on their asses isn't going to fix that under any circumstances.
Ok, I'm pretty exhausted, so maybe I'm not understanding you here. I'm not a Republican. I don't know why you keep bringing that into the conversation.
I'm not for hiring these people to do infrastructure projects. Don't need to. We've got tons of people collecting unemployment. We're paying them to do nothing.
If we're going to continue paying Unemployment for so long, I'd rather pay them to do whatever it is we need to do and have them do it, than pay them to sit at home and do nothing.
Does what I'm saying make or not make sense to you?
Chuck
They want to pay for unemployment by taking money out of stimulus. So basically they will create more unemployed to pay for unemployment. That is their brilliant plan.
Yes it is actually keeping people employed. When you see a sign that says "funded by American Recovery and Reinvestment Act" all those jobs are paid for by the stimulus. Even got a letter from my college engineering dept saying they were able to keep more researches employed when private funding fell due to this act. So inform yourself before you make baseless claims.Stimulus isn't keeping people employed. So...no, they don't.
No, they want to use money that is authorized to pay for people to do work and use it to pay for people to sit on their asses and do nothing. I am sure all those people whose jobs were saved by stimulus money don't appreciate being called Washington's cronies.They want to use already authorized money to pay for people to sit on their asses and do nothing, rather than authorize new money to pay for people to sit on their asses and do nothing.
Stimulus is doing one thing and one thing only: keeping Washington's cronies' pockets full. If stimulus had been designed to work, it would have targeted small businesses with loans and contracts to encourage growth in the sector that employs the largest majority of US workers.
Yes it is actually keeping people employed. When you see a sign that says "funded by American Recovery and Reinvestment Act" all those jobs are paid for by the stimulus. Even got a letter from my college engineering dept saying they were able to keep more researches employed when private funding fell due to this act. So inform yourself before you make baseless claims.
No, they want to use money that is authorized to pay for people to do work and use it to pay for people to sit on their asses and do nothing. I am sure all those people whose jobs were saved by stimulus money don't appreciate being called Washington's cronies.
I guess if Obama says it enough, it must be true.
I conceed to your (absolutely proofless and baseless) assertion that $1T in government money and taxes on the middle class did more good than harm.
(Isn't this what the sheeple are saying now-adays? Personally, I think that letting the middle class keep that $1T would have been way more useful to the economy...but...that's just me, I guess.)
Stimulus isn't keeping people employed. So...no, they don't. They want to use already authorized money to pay for people to sit on their asses and do nothing, rather than authorize new money to pay for people to sit on their asses and do nothing.
Stimulus is doing one thing and one thing only: keeping Washington's cronies' pockets full. If stimulus had been designed to work, it would have targeted small businesses with loans and contracts to encourage growth in the sector that employs the largest majority of US workers.
Republicans will do anything, screw how ever many people it takes to avoid doing the obvious, which is to raise taxes, particularly on the financial elite.
The weirdest thing abut the current situation is that we're borrowing money to do what needs to be done, and the reason we're doing that is because the people who are supposed to be investing in the economy aren't- they're buying govt bonds instead.
The guys at the top really are in the catbird seat at this point, quite by design. They have no incentive to invest when their money gains value stuffed into their mattresses, which is what a deflationary spiral achieves. Income and wealth have become so concentrated that the investor class suffers no personal hardship at all if their incomes drop substantially. They can afford to let it all fall down, then drive very hard bargains for distressed assets.
They're in no mood to take risks, and the govt borrowing from them disincentivizes them even further.
The only way to break that cycle is to raise taxes at the top while creating tax incentives for honest job creation.
It's not like they'll starve, obviously, or that the kids won't go to Harvard, either. If we accounted for inflation and raised tax rates to the level they were in 1980, pre-Reagan, we'd go a long way to solving our fiscal problems.
The financial elite won't have as much to invest? They're not investing in America, anyway, so the point is moot...
Not much I can do about your willful ignorance.
So......
Your answer to the wealthy saving their money in mattresses instead of investing is to tax them at HIGHER rates when they do invest?
Do you think before you speak?
Watch the show "Wind at your Back". It is based on survival during the depression.
You can not kill american ingenuity. During the depression banks failed and people did not get loans, because they could not. So they just did without. It is a trip down memory lane. Start paying off your debts.
Does it make sense to you is a better question.
I guess if Obama says it enough, it must be true.
I conceed to your (absolutely proofless and baseless) assertion that $1T in government money and taxes on the middle class did more good than harm.
(Isn't this what the sheeple are saying now-adays? Personally, I think that letting the middle class keep that $1T would have been way more useful to the economy...but...that's just me, I guess.)
Yes, it makes sense, because if I pay an unemployed person to do something I'm paying far less than had I hired them to do it. Plus I'm not reinforcing them sitting around just getting paid, they're out there having to sweat to make their buck.
If I'm going to go into massive debt, at least getting something for my money rather than absolutely nothing can happen.
Isn't this Commom Sense?
Chuck