Didn't catch the jobs speech..

pspr · Sep 8, 2011

Quote from stock777:

Football sucks.

That explains a lot.

377OHMS · Sep 9, 2011

Quote from ChkitOut:

..what did I miss?

More tax and spend. Another 450B evidently.

I suppose that when you are a hammer every problem appears to be a nail.

I'm disappointed. Reduction of government spending and regulation is what I think is needed but instead we're going to have more stimulus money handed to the unions. Krugman prevailed here.

In short, you missed nothing.

RickTheMan · Sep 9, 2011

Quote from 377OHMS:

More tax and spend. Another 450B evidently.

I suppose that when you are a hammer every problem appears to be a nail.

I'm disappointed. Reduction of government spending and regulation is what I think is needed but instead we're going to have more stimulus money handed to the unions. Krugman prevailed here.

In short, you missed nothing.

But you missed a hell of a good game.

Ricter · Sep 9, 2011

Quote from 377OHMS:

... Krugman prevailed here...

Perhaps. Only time will tell if increased consumer spending results in increased business sales.

; )

nutmeg · Sep 9, 2011

Thought it was a good speech, but I haven't a clue who he was talking to.

377OHMS · Sep 9, 2011

Quote from Ricter:

Perhaps. Only time will tell if increased consumer spending results in increased business sales.

; )

Increased consumer spending?

Ricter, the money is borrowed. Its another credit card charge.

The money will largely go to the "already employed" union membership. This isn't going to put the unemployed back into jobs anymore than the Work Projects Administration did during the Depression.

The government refuses to decrease its spending after 3 rounds of failed "stimulus" so what do they do? They spend a flood of money again. Its madness.

Ricter · Sep 9, 2011

Quote from 377OHMS:

Increased consumer spending?

Ricter, the money is borrowed. Its another credit card charge.

The money will largely go to the "already employed" union membership. This isn't going to put the unemployed back into jobs anymore than the Work Projects Administration did during the Depression.

The government refuses to decrease its spending after 3 rounds of failed "stimulus" so what do they do? They spend a flood of money again. Its madness.

I was not aware that the WPA failed to put unemployed persons to work. Where are you reading that?

rew · Sep 9, 2011

The proposal was wholly unsurprising -- spend hundreds of billions of dollars we don't have, and will have to borrow.

Really, what else do you expect a politician to propose?

Lucrum · Sep 9, 2011

Quote from Ricter:

Perhaps. Only time will tell if increased consumer spending results in increased business sales.

; )

According to you recently, the consumer is broke.
How does more grossly inefficient federal government spending of more borrowed money translate to consumer spending?

Arnie · Sep 9, 2011

Quote from Ricter:

I was not aware that the WPA failed to put unemployed persons to work. Where are you reading that?

There's a difference between "putting people to work" and businesses hiring workers in response to increased demand for goods and services. We could have 100% employment by paying people to dig holes and fill them in with a spoon, but they aren't creating anything anyone wants. Why not put the money back into the private sector and let the market dictate where it goes? I think this is one of the biggest differences between liberals and conservatives. If there is one thing that came through crystal clear last night, its that Obama really doesn't have a clue. Here we are into his thrid year and he is still railing against the "rich" and "corporations". He's like a walking poster for the Socialist Workers Party. Unfucking believable