And barrys Stimulus was a FAILURE....

chefdennis

Veteran Expediter
LOL, and yet another failed policy move from barry...and this report is from his own economist!!! LOL, he could have given every job created by his BS Stimulus plan $100,000 each and saved money!!! But nooo he had to use failed economic policies from the passed to "fix" the economy and "create jobs"....and now his own people are saying his "stimulus" is causing the economy to "shed" jos....LOL...How is that "hope and change" workin for all you barry supporters...lol...:D

Oh and they let this reprt out an FRIDAY afternoon, before the holiday weekend when they figure no one will pay attention and the media won't cover it....lol well at least the MSM....

And open the links in the article, the "debt clock" is really pretty cool....:D

Obama’s Economists: ‘Stimulus’ Has Cost $278,000 per JobThe stimulus is now causing the economy to shed jobs.

12:07 PM, Jul 3, 2011
By JEFFREY H. ANDERSON
Obama

When the Obama administration releases a report on the Friday before a long weekend, it’s clearly not trying to draw attention to the report’s contents. Sure enough, the “Seventh QuarterlyReport”
( http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/cea_7th_arra_report.pdf ) on the economic impact of the “stimulus,” released on Friday, July 1, provides further evidence that President Obama’s economic “stimulus” did very little, if anything, to stimulate the economy, and a whole lot to stimulate the debt.

The report was written by the White House’s Council of Economic Advisors, a group of three economists who were all handpicked by Obama, and it chronicles the alleged success of the “stimulus” in adding or saving jobs. The council reports that, using “mainstream estimates of economic multipliers for the effects of fiscal stimulus” (which it describes as a “natural way to estimate the effects of” the legislation), the “stimulus” has added or saved just under 2.4 million jobs — whether private or public — at a cost (to date) of $666 billion. That’s a cost to taxpayers of $278,000 per job.

In other words, the government could simply have cut a $100,000 check to everyone whose employment was allegedly made possible by the “stimulus,” and taxpayers would have come out $427 billion ahead.

Furthermore, the council reports that, as of two quarters ago, the “stimulus” had added or saved just under 2.7 million jobs — or 288,000 more than it has now. In other words, over the past six months, the economy would have added or saved more jobs without the “stimulus” than it has with it. In comparison to how things would otherwise have been, the “stimulus” has been working in reverse over the past six months, causing the economy to shed jobs.

Again, this is the verdict of Obama’s own Council of Economic Advisors, which is about as much of a home-field ruling as anyone could ever ask for. In truth, it’s quite possible that by borrowing an amount greater than the regular defense budget or the annual cost of Medicare, and then spending it mostly on Democratic constituencies rather than in a manner genuinely designed to stimulate the economy, Obama’s “stimulus” has actually undermined the economy’s recovery — while leaving us (thus far) $666 billion deeper in debt.

The actual employment numbers ( Bureau of Labor Statistics Data ) from the administration’s own Bureau of Labor Statistics show that the unemployment rate was 7.3 percent when the “stimulus” was being debated. It has since risen to 9.1 percent. Meanwhile, the national debt at the end of 2008, when Obama was poised to take office, was $9.986 trillion (see Table S-9) ( http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy10/pdf/fy10-newera.pdf ). It’s now $14.467 trillion — and counting . ( U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time )

All sides agree on these incriminating numbers — and now they also appear to agree on this important point: The economy would now be generating job growth at a faster rate if the Democrats hadn’t passed the “stimulus.”
 

Oilerman1957

Expert Expediter
LOL, and yet another failed policy move from barry...and this report is from his own economist!!! LOL, he could have given every job created by his BS Stimulus plan $100,000 each and saved money!!! But nooo he had to use failed economic policies from the passed to "fix" the economy and "create jobs"....and now his own people are saying his "stimulus" is causing the economy to "shed" jos....LOL...How is that "hope and change" workin for all you barry supporters...lol...:D

Oh and they let this reprt out an FRIDAY afternoon, before the holiday weekend when they figure no one will pay attention and the media won't cover it....lol well at least the MSM....

And open the links in the article, the "debt clock" is really pretty cool....:D

Obama’s Economists: ‘Stimulus’ Has Cost $278,000 per JobThe stimulus is now causing the economy to shed jobs.

12:07 PM, Jul 3, 2011
By JEFFREY H. ANDERSON
Obama

Now you know thats just silly, "cut them a check" ? What about the bridges that got replaced? or the roadwork? Yea, lets promote just cutting checks and call that a better idea. Silly people.
 

chefdennis

Veteran Expediter
LOL, yea we ad to make sure those "Union" construction" jobs were saved didn't we....:rolleyes:

Ad one thing that no one ever talks about....i guess the Federal Hyway dept had absolutely no money available for road and bridge construction before the stimulus....everything would have come to a halt...I guess the "TAX" that the states and the fed collect on each gallon of gas sold that funds the hyway depts just weren't there....:rolleyes:

Oh and the statement abot cutting cuts, was "sarcasism"...to show the stupidity that either would have been, paying $278,000 per job or writing a check to the people....:)

And remember, these are the numbers from barrys own WH economic panel, his hand oicked people...not the CBO people, that can only work with the "fixed data that they are supplied with by whichever party is in office at the time....
 
Last edited:

Oilerman1957

Expert Expediter
I dont care if they were union or not, I may have belonged to a union but ive never thought every job should be union, Who knows what happens to the tax on gas money, kinda like any tax, they spend it where they see fit. The problem with any stimulus plan in this day and age is we have a hard time finding a way to put people back to work, use to be you put the construction people back to work they would buy tv's or clothes and thus put more people back to work here, but since we dont build much here anymore, it doesnt work, all we do is put people to work in other countries, We have dug ourselves quite a hole here.
 

chefdennis

Veteran Expediter
1st it is NOT the governments place to "put people to work" you want jobs back here, get the government and their bs regulations and the ighest corp taxes out f the way...LOL, even Bill Clinton said last week we NEEDED To LOWER CORP BUSINESS TAXES...but barry has no use for the private sector and the free market (what we have of one)...he is all about the gov controling and being the "Great provider and equalizer" and sharing the wealth.....kinda in that same vein as MARX.....
 

Oilerman1957

Expert Expediter
I think alot of Corps dont even pay taxes with all the write-offs, when it comes down to it, we cant compete with such low wages and overseas they dont have EPA and such, the corp tax is nothing, wages, enviroment control, lack of concern for peoples health, these are all reasons companies move overseas. All things people in this country wouldnt even begin to accept from a company they work for. You say lower corp taxes? someone has to make up that money you know and that someone is the person that works. If your city gives a property tax exempt to someone to bring in a company, property taxes for people will have to increase, It never gets cheaper to maintain and run schools, And Bill can say what he wants now, he already signed NAFTA, now he has a solution to bring jobs back?
Kinda funny. I mean your a small business, how much income tax did you pay off your small business? exactly
 
Last edited:

chefdennis

Veteran Expediter
Thats right, and Ill continue to pay the least amount of taxes as i can as any business should as long as they are not breaking the laws and simply usig our tax codes to their benefit...its how it is....

The why School taxes are based and collected are bs plain and simple...thats why they have been ruled unconstitutional in ohio and other place... you ca collect all the taxes you want to fund education, and you will still have huge disparities in what goes to each school....so playing the the "tax abatment" issue is bs also....

Our corp tax stucture and the tax that corps pay are the highest of any devoloped country..sure some don't pay any taxes because of write off and while it is legal, to a certain extent, there needs to be reform of the codes...but you tell me when you have ever worked for a poor person or tell me when a poor person ever employed a work force....if you stripe tax breaks from the corps, you will also raise the price of every product they make because they will simply pass that increase onto the consumer....as they should....people don't start run and employ people to break even or to even provide jobs, they do it to make money, and investors invest their money for the same reason...So yea while corps avoid paying taxes, for the most part, its all legal..and you too can use those tax codes to your benefit, if you (not you particuliarly, but the collective you) don't do that, then you are making a mistake, well unless you feel the need to just give money you don't need to the government....

You can say that the corps should pay more, but unless they are doing something illegal, why should they???? You run a business also, why don't you just pay more??? You can write a check over and above your return to the fed gov at anytime you want to, they will take your money...

Oh ans one more thing on schools, the fed funding of thm needs to go away totally and does the dept of education...they need to be funded strctly on a state and more so on a local basis....yea i know it won't happen, but thats how it should be... the fed gov was never meant to be in the education business....but was the libs decided they knew better for the people and started seeking votes through stealing tax dollars and giving them away, we now have a citizen body that feels that it is the governments place to take care of them cradle to grave and to make sure that they are protected from eveil businesses and anything else that they feel the need to....you know just like the union members...they need the unio to protect them from the evil management....and just like Marx, to make it all far and equal.....Why do you think unions back the lib dems? Because those are the ones that feel the need to "protect" the masses from every possible evil including protecting the people from themselves....

Our government is too big, too bloated and out of control with agencies, regulations and laws...and yea the EPA is one of them that needs to go also, along with the NLRB too....and the list goes on....

And barrys "Stimulus" is still a failure, just like he is....I was attacked in 08 when I said i hoped he failed.. i wqas told if he failed then the consequences would be that the country would fail....look around and tell me we as a country are better off with barrys ideals and the damage he has done to our country....
 

dieseldiva

Veteran Expediter
Now you know thats just silly, "cut them a check" ? What about the bridges that got replaced? or the roadwork? Yea, lets promote just cutting checks and call that a better idea. Silly people.

Silly people? It's common knowledge that just 7% of the stimulus was spent on those bridges and roads but I'll give you a paragraph that speaks truth to the problem.....

About 7 percent of the $800 billion of Obama stimulus monies went to “hard” projects, such as repairing roads and bridges and constructing public buildings. The vast majority of stimulus money went to what we in government call, “maintenance of effort,” or for pet projects backed by liberal Democrat Congressional leaders. In other words, the Obama administration shot its stimulus wad on pork-barrel spending and keeping government employees working in an artificial continuum, with little spending directed at jump-starting private-sector job creation.

ARTICLE HERE
 

Oilerman1957

Expert Expediter
Silly people? It's common knowledge that just 7% of the stimulus was spent on those bridges and roads but I'll give you a paragraph that speaks truth to the problem.....



ARTICLE HERE

Well see, even that article doesnt tell the whols truth, there is still 257 billion that hasnt even been spent on anything out of the 800 billion, but whatever, all i was saying was for the original article to say we could have just cut checks to people was the silly part. I dont believe any one in the Gov will do the right things, its just the way it is.


And as far as unions go, if a group of people want a union and get one, so what, its there right under the constitution, you do believe in that dont you? To be honest, i dont see the unions as any different then hiring a lawyer, someone to get you what you want, some do it themselves, some hire lawyers, agents, accountants, unions, its all a paid service.
 
Last edited:

Oilerman1957

Expert Expediter
We dont really know what is a failure and what wouldnt be on things like this, was the bank bailouts a failure? I dont know, I dont know all that would have happened if we didnt bail them out, maybe it would have been far worse, maybe not, we sure dont know.
 

chefdennis

Veteran Expediter
LOL...union representation is a Constitutional right?!? Please qoute the article in the Constitution that staes that verbatim please..or maybe the court case that gave that ruling....LOL...

As for unions being "hired" as help...hmmm then I guess those that are forced to join a union to have a job in a uaw or any other union shop should be able to "not hire" the union if they don't want their representation.....but then again, I already know that your answer will e that if they don't want to use those "hired services, they don't have to go to work there.....:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:

Oilerman1957

Expert Expediter
LOL...union representation is a Constitutional right?!? Please qoute the article in the Constitution that staes that verbatim please..or maybe the court case that gave that ruling....LOL...

As for unions being "hired" as help...hmmm then I guess those that are forced to join a union to have a job in a uaw or any other union shop should be able to "not hire" the union if they don't want their representation.....but then again, I already know that your answer will e that if they don't want to use those "hired services, they don't have to go to work there.....:rolleyes:

No, the right to organize is. I dont think anyone should have to join, then again maybe they should represent themselveles on pay and benes on there own to instead of riding the unions coatails You see, I dont promote unions or non unions, I just think people have a right to join if they wish.

The Bill of Rights is the collective name for the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution which limit the power of the U.S. federal government. These limitations protect the natural rights of liberty and property including freedoms of religion, speech, a free press, free assembly, and free association, as well as the right to keep and bear arms.

free assembly and free association, It is a right to join a union if one choses.
 

chefdennis

Veteran Expediter
LOL, yea, I knew the free assembly was comin...ok...So again where is the clause stating the right to Join a Union for their representation...

And yes, anyone that could be allowed to work in a closed shop without joining the union should absolutely deal independently and seperate from the union with the company for any and all benefits..in that way their benefits would truly be based on the merits of that individual, not the "collective" that includes those that work and have to carry the "deadwood" members of the collective...after all everyone in the union has to be treated equal, no matter how productive they are....well unless you are a "UAW shop stewert" and you have to "Bowl" each week during your shift on the clock....or need to be woke up from your nap because its your turn to make beer runs for the everyday liquid lunch at breaktime....:rolleyes:
 

Oilerman1957

Expert Expediter
LOL, yea, I knew the free assembly was comin...ok...So again where is the clause stating the right to Join a Union for their representation...

And yes, anyone that could be allowed to work in a closed shop without joining the union should absolutely deal independently and seperate from the union with the company for any and all benefits..in that way their benefits would truly be based on the merits of that individual, not the "collective" that includes those that work and have to carry the "deadwood" members of the collective...after all everyone in the union has to be treated equal, no matter how productive they are....well unless you are a "UAW shop stewert" and you have to "Bowl" each week during your shift on the clock....or need to be woke up from your nap because its your turn to make beer runs for the everyday liquid lunch at breaktime....:rolleyes:

Why else would you join a union? for representation. And you can pick out bad apples in any industry and claim its all of them, Do all truckers break DOT laws? some do, so it must be them all. Maybe there is a union steward who has a liquid lunch, doesnt mean they all do, I know ones that have been fired for it and not come back.

All im stating is, its a right to join a union, and its a right not to join a union.

BTW, most of that stuff about unions doing that stuff is so 1990's they have evolved just as the employees have, are there still bad apples? you betcha, just like anywhere
 

chefdennis

Veteran Expediter
LOL, so 90's lol you have a short memory..it was big news during the union bailouts by barry when the news in Detroit followed 3 different union reps around when they were bowling and buying beer and at home when they were suppose to be at work...it happens everyday to this day...

And again, so where do those that are forced to join a union in a closed shop go when they don't want to join!? How is that taken care of for them???

Why is it that the NLRB is fighting Boeing to force them to stay in a union state and not be allowed to build new products in South Carolina because they are a "right to work state"??? huh, why can't they open their new factory without having to sue the fed gov and the union???

Free to join or not to join??? BS....
 

Oilerman1957

Expert Expediter
LOL, so 90's lol you have a short memory..it was big news during the union bailouts by barry when the news in Detroit followed 3 different union reps around when they were bowling and buying beer and at home when they were suppose to be at work...it happens everyday to this day...

And again, so where do those that are forced to join a union in a closed shop go when they don't want to join!? How is that taken care of for them???

Why is it that the NLRB is fighting Boeing to force them to stay in a union state and not be allowed to build new products in South Carolina because they are a "right to work state"??? huh, why can't they open their new factory without having to sue the fed gov and the union???

Free to join or not to join??? BS....

There are hundreds of unions reps, so they found 3, small % still do those things, the stupid ones and yes there are stupid ones.

The closed shop thing is complaicated, all the company would have to do is ask if you were pro union and if you are not hire you, lots of problems that caused closed shops, but if the majority want a closed shop. why souldnt it be? just like if the majority dont want a union they dont vote it in, same can be said for those people that want to belong to a union but cant because the company doesnt have on.

BTW, you always make such good arguements, lol
 

chefdennis

Veteran Expediter
But you still haven't answerd that you said being in a union is like hiring a lawyer...when you HIRE a lawyer it is by CHOICE..so if there is a choice, why don't those that want to work in a closed shop and NOT belong to the union have to join!?!? They have no choice nor a way to work without the force representation...its not a choice as one has in HIRING a lawyer...you used the word HIRE, not me...Union closed shops are forced on people (new hires) that may not want them, then add the Boeing / NLRB issue to the deal and you have the government doing the unions dirty work..well i guess thats to be expected since barry (and democrats as a whole) pander to that "entitlement base"...unions fit into barrys "share the wealth, equalization ideals...just has Marx.....
 

Oilerman1957

Expert Expediter
But you still haven't answerd that you said being in a union is like hiring a lawyer...when you HIRE a lawyer it is by CHOICE..so if there is a choice, why don't those that want to work in a closed shop and NOT belong to the union have to join!?!? They have no choice nor a way to work without the force representation...its not a choice as one has in HIRING a lawyer...you used the word HIRE, not me...Union closed shops are forced on people (new hires) that may not want them, then add the Boeing / NLRB issue to the deal and you have the government doing the unions dirty work..well i guess thats to be expected since barry (and democrats as a whole) pander to that "entitlement base"...unions fit into barrys "share the wealth, equalization ideals...just has Marx.....

The choice is>>>> you chose to work in a closed union shop. your not entitled to a job there, so its your choice. Now back to painting my house, this sucks, lol
 

jaminjim

Veteran Expediter
Is the owner of the Company entitled to give someone a job who doesn't want the union representation? After all it is his company.
 

jaminjim

Veteran Expediter
Is the owner of the Company entitled to give someone a job who doesn't want the union representation? After all it is his company.
 
Top