Obama: Investments in energy sector to create 700,000 jobs.

[JusBringIt]

These jobs are all over including automotive and banking industry.

[Kurz]

JusBringit,

Jobs created by the government and payed by the government need to be constantly funded. If there is no market demand for those industries or jobs how can you call that stimulus? You aren't stimulating anything... You are creating a bubble of temp jobs and money borrowed yet again from the future.

You are proping up failed industries... Hence all the wasted time and money that was rolled out to GM and Chryslar (Spell check not here). Whenever money is wasted it pulls money from one sector that can be profitable to one that isn't. Plus you have the devaluation of the currency. By stimulating and bailing out you are hit by multiple things, wasted money, inflation, bubbles, mal investments... I could go on.

[booferama]

Just ran across this about one particular stimulus program that's been successful at job creation.

[JusBringIt]

Originally Posted by Kurz

JusBringit,

Jobs created by the government and payed by the government need to be constantly funded. If there is no market demand for those industries or jobs how can you call that stimulus? You aren't stimulating anything... You are creating a bubble of temp jobs and money borrowed yet again from the future.

• Money was lent to the automotive industry, not given.
  Though the CEO's of the industry have managed to mismanage funds they earned, they were a profitable industry and showed the capability to return to profitability once our economic recession (which was a result of their bad management and the banks) had subsided. chrysler is paying back its loans
  That changes the division factor, though it's a small amount. It bugs me that they were not expecting any money back however if they want the taxpayers to have any faith, they know its good marketing to pay back what you owe, otherwise they're not setting any example for their customers if you know what I mean.
  Once the economy on a whole is able to catch up, there is no maintenance. Yes there is some initial support (this is why it's a stimulus because it gives a bit more confidence in the industry and the dollar cycle-the dollar movement around through different industries) but this has all already been laid out from the beginning.

Originally Posted by Kurz

You are proping up failed industries... Hence all the wasted time and money that was rolled out to GM and Chryslar (Spell check not here). Whenever money is wasted it pulls money from one sector that can be profitable to one that isn't. Plus you have the devaluation of the currency. By stimulating and bailing out you are hit by multiple things, wasted money, inflation, bubbles, mal investments... I could go on.

Im not a supporter of mindlessly propping up big businesses and biting the bullet, but we may never know what the outcome would have been if those jobs were not maintained. I'm sure a number of projections could be made and some could be accurate, but that's besides the point.

Inflation had been chipping away at the dollar well before the stimulus bill came into consideration. Inflation and bad investments, as well as financial protection bubbles are all wasted money. Sometimes you have to use more money now to avoid going bankrupt later.

[Kurz]

Originally Posted by JusBringIt

• Money was lent to the automotive industry, not given.
  Though the CEO's of the industry have managed to mismanage funds they earned, they were a profitable industry and showed the capability to return to profitability once our economic recession (which was a result of their bad management and the banks) had subsided. chrysler is paying back its loans
  
  That changes the division factor, though it's a small amount. It bugs me that they were not expecting any money back however if they want the taxpayers to have any faith, they know its good marketing to pay back what you owe, otherwise they're not setting any example for their customers if you know what I mean.
  Once the economy on a whole is able to catch up, there is no maintenance. Yes there is some initial support (this is why it's a stimulus because it gives a bit more confidence in the industry and the dollar cycle-the dollar movement around through different industries) but this has all already been laid out from the beginning.

Lent money is still money is being created and is a missmanagement of the nations reasources. They went bankrupt anyway and now they are starting to make profit after they restructured, which what should've happened in the first place. The money is never lost, it found itself someplace else.

Confidence doesn't come from pailing on more debt... it comes from building of capital and profitablity.

Originally Posted by JusBringIt

Im not a supporter of mindlessly propping up big businesses and biting the bullet, but we may never know what the outcome would have been if those jobs were not maintained. I'm sure a number of projections could be made and some could be accurate, but that's besides the point.

Inflation had been chipping away at the dollar well before the stimulus bill came into consideration. Inflation and bad investments, as well as financial protection bubbles are all wasted money. Sometimes you have to use more money now to avoid going bankrupt later.

Yes... but bills like this gives more license to spend and we'll end up like greece before long.

[booferama]

The argument for stimulus is this: government spending on job creation puts the unemployed to work. Thus, they have money to spend, so production in the private sector goes up over time. Increased production leads to increased need for workers, opening up more jobs. Because no one--not private companies or consumers--spends during a recession or depression, the influx of earnings into the economy restarts it. GDP goes up, and unemployment goes down. As tax revenues increase from increased employment, the balance of tax revenue and spending starts to even out.

That's how it worked during the New Deal; I don't know why we haven't learned that lesson from history yet, but evidently we haven't.

[epurvee]

The solution was to borrow money to fix a problem that is ultimately caused by too much debt. Banks were loaning money on deposits, then they gave a value to those loans which was higher than their face value, used the value they assigned to the loans to write more loans and invest in stocks and derivative investments. When taking into account what the true value of the loans were, the banks were leveraged closer to 80 to 1 rather than 40 to 1.

How much sense does it make to give a person who is drowning in debt a loan to help him out? Orderly bankruptcies of the failed banks is the only way that the debt problem could have been addressed. Rewarding their failure failure ensures that the failed system will propagate. Instead of allowing small banks to buy assets for pennies on the dollar, thereby becoming large banks with a good balance sheet, we kept failures in business by borrowing money that can never be paid off.

This travesty was conducted by both political parties. The Democrats and Republicans are implicit in this together. Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos!

[Harold]

Without OB, the US would still be sinking! H

[Kurz]

Originally Posted by booferama

The argument for stimulus is this: government spending on job creation puts the unemployed to work. Thus, they have money to spend, so production in the private sector goes up over time. Increased production leads to increased need for workers, opening up more jobs. Because no one--not private companies or consumers--spends during a recession or depression, the influx of earnings into the economy restarts it. GDP goes up, and unemployment goes down. As tax revenues increase from increased employment, the balance of tax revenue and spending starts to even out.

That's how it worked during the New Deal; I don't know why we haven't learned that lesson from history yet, but evidently we haven't.

Its because the GDP also includes the loans being written.
Its happening even now.... Our GDP should be lower except all the loans being written by the Fed is artificially increasing our GDP. How does it make sense our Gross Demoestic product includes loans drawn on from the future?

Government spending is devaluing the purchasing power of the American people.
This effect takes away our ability to purchase resources we could've purchased on our own. Money/Comodities it self is subjective not objective, the more you have the less its worth generally.

I suggest everyone google "Crash course" and watch from chapter 6 and up.
He does I think one of the best jobs explaining our current problem.

[booferama]

Originally Posted by epurvee

Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos!

Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others!