How Will $300 Billion Fix The Economy When $1 Trillion Did Not?

[red states rule]

Once again the left's answer to a problem is to thorw more money at it.

Seems like more of the same failed crap Obama has tried that has only dragged the ecnomy further south





President Barack Obama, facing waning confidence among Americans in his economic stewardship, plans some $300 billion in tax cuts and government spending as part of a job-creating package, U.S. media reported on Tuesday.

The price tag of the proposed package, to be announced by Obama in a nationally televised speech to Congress on Thursday, would be offset by other cuts that the president would outline, CNN reported, citing Democratic sources.

Bloomberg News said the plan would inject more than $300 billion into the economy (http://www.debatepolicy.com/finance/economy) next year through tax cuts, spending on infrastructure, and aid to state and local governments.
Obama would offset those short-term costs by calling on Congress to raise tax revenues in a deficit-cutting proposal he will lay out next week, the news agency reported, without citing sources.

The White House declined to comment on the reports.

Obama's aides have refused to go public with the estimated cost of Obama's package or provide many specifics in advance, except to say that the proposals will have a "quick and positive" impact on boosting jobs at a time of stubbornly high U.S. unemployment.

"We need to do things that will have a direct impact in the short-term to grow the economy and create jobs, and the president will put forward proposals that will do just that," White House spokesman Jay Carney said.


http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/07/us-obama-jobs-idUSTRE78176520110907

[fj1200]

I'm sure that any tax cut proposal will be entirely pointless.

[avatar4321]

What is he going to cut from the budget to pay for his program?

Oh wait, doesnt he need to make a budget?

[Thunderknuckles]

I seem to recall a saying about doing the same thing over and over again....:p

[Missileman]

Once again the left's answer to a problem is to thorw more money at it.

Seems like more of the same failed crap Obama has tried that has only dragged the ecnomy further south

I could fix the economy with 300 billion. Give an equal share of it to every citizen who paid at least $1 dollar in federal taxes last year.

[Monkeybone]

The main difference is that this one is paid for while the Trillion dollar one wasn't. Big Diff. :laugh:

[Thunderknuckles]

The main difference is that this one is paid for while the Trillion dollar one wasn't. Big Diff. :laugh:
As I understand it Obama plans to pay for it by adding it to the total amount of deficit reduction the super committee is supposed to decide on before the end of the year, yet Obama wants his job bill passed now. He's counting his chickens before they've hatched.

[avatar4321]

The main difference is that this one is paid for while the Trillion dollar one wasn't. Big Diff.


This one is paid for? Since when?

[ConHog]

I could fix the economy with 300 billion. Give an equal share of it to every citizen who paid at least $1 dollar in federal taxes last year.

I'd go a different route. I'd give an equal share to each family that didn't earn at least $250K last year. Let's be honest, if you made $250K as a family last year, you're doing alright.

[Kathianne]

The main difference is that this one is paid for while the Trillion dollar one wasn't. Big Diff. :laugh:

Do you believe Obama or just lie too? The first version of this was out before 11 pm on the night of the speech:

http://news.yahoo.com/fact-check-obamas-jobs-plan-paid-seems-not-235234313.html


...OBAMA: "Everything in this bill will be paid for. Everything."


THE FACTS: Obama did not spell out exactly how he would pay for the measures contained in his nearly $450 billion American Jobs Act but said he would send his proposed specifics in a week to the new congressional supercommittee charged with finding budget savings. White House aides suggested that new deficit spending in the near term to try to promote job creation would be paid for in the future — the "out years," in legislative jargon — but they did not specify what would be cut or what revenues they would use.


Essentially, the jobs plan is an IOU from a president and lawmakers who may not even be in office down the road when the bills come due. Today's Congress cannot bind a later one for future spending. A future Congress could simply reverse it.


Currently, roughly all federal taxes and other revenues are consumed in spending on various federal benefit programs, including Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, veterans' benefits, food stamps, farm subsidies and other social-assistance programs and payments on the national debt. Pretty much everything else is done on credit with borrowed money.

So there is no guarantee that programs that clearly will increase annual deficits in the near term will be paid for in the long term....

[fj1200]

I'd go a different route. I'd give an equal share to each family that didn't earn at least $250K last year. Let's be honest, if you made $250K as a family last year, you're doing alright.

Rebates stimulate nothing. Didn't work under Bush... twice...

[ConHog]

Rebates stimulate nothing. Didn't work under Bush... twice...

I'm not talking about a rebate. I'm talking about an outright check mailed out today, tax free. I mean IF they are going to spend the money.

Just think if they would have taken that $1.3T (counting this proposed jobs bill) and said okay we have approximately 125M families in the US, of those approximately 85% fall below the $250K income for last year so each of THOSE families gets a one time check for $13K. Now that doesn't sound like much I know, but far more good than the crap we've actually been given has. $13K Wouldn't do much for MY families situation, but for a struggling family it sure would.

Unless you think each family has received $13K worth of the services and goods from Obama's stimulus packages?

[fj1200]

I'm not talking about a rebate. I'm talking about an outright check mailed out today, tax free. I mean IF they are going to spend the money.

Just think if they would have taken that $1.3T (counting this proposed jobs bill) and said okay we have approximately 125M families in the US, of those approximately 85% fall below the $250K income for last year so each of THOSE families gets a one time check for $13K. Now that doesn't sound like much I know, but far more good than the crap we've actually been given has. $13K Wouldn't do much for MY families situation, but for a struggling family it sure would.

Unless you think each family has received $13K worth of the services and goods from Obama's stimulus packages?

It's a rebate virtually identical to the ones sent previously which also didn't only go to tax payers because the government, of course, had to be "fair." So unless you have some information that this rebate would actually be utilized for something other than a straight-to-the-deficit transfer payment... Either way it would still be pointless as their is zero long-term growth incentive in a "rebate."

Of course we haven't received 13k worth of value from the stimulus (which was never the intention) but the purpose of stimulus is to stimulate the overall economy and the demand side effect would be negated by all the other effects of higher taxes/regulations/etc. and overall uncertainty the the BO adminstration is injecting. All of these plans about rebates, tax credits, temporary this, and temporary that are just big government speak for all good things come from DC which is patently BS.

[ConHog]

It's a rebate virtually identical to the ones sent previously which also didn't only go to tax payers because the government, of course, had to be "fair." So unless you have some information that this rebate would actually be utilized for something other than a straight-to-the-deficit transfer payment... Either way it would still be pointless as their is zero long-term growth incentive in a "rebate."

Of course we haven't received 13k worth of value from the stimulus but the purpose of stimulus is to stimulate the overall economy and the demand side effect would be negated by all the other effects of higher taxes/regulations/etc. and overall uncertainty the the BO adminstration is injecting. All of these plans about rebates, tax credits, temporary this, and temporary that are just big government speak for all good things come from DC which is patently BS.

Well, if you're saying the government shouldn't have done ANYTHING. I'm inclined to agree. I'm just arguing lesser of two evils at this point.

By the way, what could we have pumped that one time payment to each family up to if we hadn't done any bailouts? Probably around $30K per family? Now THAT would have changed some lives.

[fj1200]

Well, if you're saying the government shouldn't have done ANYTHING. I'm inclined to agree. I'm just arguing lesser of two evils at this point.

By the way, what could we have pumped that one time payment to each family up to if we hadn't done any bailouts? Probably around $30K per family? Now THAT would have changed some lives.

Which bailouts? TARP? That was mostly paid back iirc. I didn't realize you were advocating a massive wealth transfer of that scale... there's a word for that.

[ConHog]

Which bailouts? TARP? That was mostly paid back iirc. I didn't realize you were advocating a massive wealth transfer of that scale... there's a word for that.

TARP as well as GM , etc etc.

I'm not for a massive wealth transfer. I am for using our money smartly if we are just going to have massive spending bills like this. IMO it would have been wiser to give families the money rather than build bridges to nowhere etc etc like we did.

Even better would be not spending that much money at all.

[fj1200]

TARP as well as GM , etc etc.

I'm not for a massive wealth transfer. I am for using our money smartly if we are just going to have massive spending bills like this. IMO it would have been wiser to give families the money rather than build bridges to nowhere etc etc like we did.

Even better would be not spending that much money at all.

TARP was paid back and GM was negligible. Either way you just advocated a wealth transfer that would have done nothing but add to the deficit and provide minimal long term benefit with all the other actions that took place. Lower rates, lesser (or at least sensible) regulation are long term keys.

[ConHog]

TARP was paid back and GM was negligible. Either way you just advocated a wealth transfer that would have done nothing but add to the deficit and provide minimal long term benefit with all the other actions that took place. Lower rates, lesser (or at least sensible) regulation are long term keys.

I didn't advocate anything my friend. I said IF we were going to spend the money I would prefer doing B to doing A. If someone asked my opinion though, and they didn't, I would have voted to do NEITHER. So I guess if you are asking if I advocate transferring wealth to individuals over corporations I would concede that yes I would. I would however prefer not transferring to anyone.

We're agreed on lower rates and sensible regulations.

[J.T]

I seem to recall seeing an article a few days ago saying 1/3 of the last one (you know, the one that was so urgent) hasn't even been spent and now we need another one?

[Missileman]

I'd go a different route. I'd give an equal share to each family that didn't earn at least $250K last year. Let's be honest, if you made $250K as a family last year, you're doing alright.

That would necessarily include those who already get more back than what they pay in and I don't think they should be rewarded. So can we agree on every citizen who paid at least $1 in federal tax AND earned less than $250K?

[ConHog]

That would necessarily include those who already get more back than what they pay in and I don't think they should be rewarded. So can we agree on every citizen who paid at least $1 in federal tax AND earned less than $250K?

So you're narrowing it down to only those who actually owed the government income tax? I could live with that.

[fj1200]

That would necessarily include those who already get more back than what they pay in and I don't think they should be rewarded. So can we agree on every citizen who paid at least $1 in federal tax AND earned less than $250K?


So you're narrowing it down to only those who actually owed the government income tax? I could live with that.

So you two are in agreement on a pointless endeavor. Just like Congress. :laugh:

[hjmick]

Three hundred billion dollars won't fix shit, that's why the actual cost of this as yet to be written but you better pass it now jobs bill will run more than four hundred billion dollars...


You have to pass it to know what's in it...


I'm not going to hold my breath while I wait for the text of the bill to be posted online. You know, like the President promised during his campaign...

[ConHog]

Three hundred billion dollars won't fix shit, that's why the actual cost of this as yet to be written but you better pass it now jobs bill will run more than four hundred billion dollars...


You have to pass it to know what's in it...


I'm not going to hold my breath while I wait for the text of the bill to be posted online. You know, like the President promised during his campaign...

You have to pass the bill to know what's in it.

[J.T]

Try 2.2 trillion (http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/).

This admin spent some 3.1 trillion last year and I honestly don't see what we have to show for it but more of the same problems.

I don't give a damn what Obama says. I simply don't trust him to suddenly start wisely investing in this country. This based on what he's done.

[red states rule]

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/mrz091211dAPC20110908084558.jpg