cada5
Banned
- 59
- 10
Are you kidding or just playing stupid?
Jobs Report: No jobs created in August.
- 9,141
- 1,797
this
cada5
Banned
- 59
- 10
I like how you asked me to explain what i quoted would create jobs. Your post that i quoted had nothing to do with creating jobs. More so how to stop bleeding the economy.
Nice strawman.
- 18,761
- 10,160
Cali & Las Vegas right now have the highest unemployment rates in the nation.
My post actually did have to do with creating jobs. It had to do with how the government could have taken steps that increased people's discretionary income by forcing the banks to offer no-cost refinances. If people had more discretionary income, they would be spending more and creating more demand for goods and services. Which in turn, would force businesses to hire more people to keep up with demand.Originally Posted by Cada5
I like how you asked me to explain what i quoted would create jobs. Your post that i quoted had nothing to do with creating jobs. More so how to stop bleeding the economy.
Nice strawman.
Edit: that should be discretionary income.
- 8,332
- 216
backpedal
- 11,315
- 57
Solyndra.. LOLOLOL
- 17,246
- 73
Originally Posted by proper english
Solyndra.. LOLOLOL
And the government gave them that big fat loan
Always drove by their really sweet office buildings off of 880 thinking I could work there someday.
cada5
Banned
- 59
- 10
Sure, ill bite.Originally Posted by cguy610
My post actually did have to do with creating jobs. It had to do with how the government could have taken steps that increased people's discretionary income by forcing the banks to offer no-cost refinances. If people had more discretionary income, they would be spending more and creating more demand for goods and services. Which in turn, would force businesses to hire more people to keep up with demand.Originally Posted by Cada5
I like how you asked me to explain what i quoted would create jobs. Your post that i quoted had nothing to do with creating jobs. More so how to stop bleeding the economy.
Nice strawman.
Edit: that should be discretionary income.
What makes you think in this economy people would take that extra money and put it to use buying non bare essential consumer goods?
I could just as easily make the argument that they would save that money and invest just to stay afloat.
Take corporate tax rates for example. You obviously are of the mind that corporations would simply pocket that extra cash and not put it back in to the economy by hiring and creating new jobs. Do you see what i'm getting at?
You want to create jobs? Re-open drilling in the gulf, thousands and thousands of jobs instantly. Allow the canadian pipeline to be built. Thousands of instant NEW jobs right there.
- 11,315
- 57
Originally Posted by acidicality
Originally Posted by proper english
Solyndra.. LOLOLOL
And the government gave them that big fat loan.
Always drove by their really sweet office buildings off of 880 thinking I could work there someday.
i used to work across the street from them...
- 37,336
- 12,757
Job of a business is to maximize profit... But in the world of greed the climate has created the focus of spending money no longer makes money, and holding onto it is the method of choice..
We've spent the last 30 years trying to help the top 2% come to find out, in non-economic terms we !*%!*$ ourselves because not only did it not and will not create jobs we are the wealthiest nation with the biggest wealth gap...
We've spent the last 30 years trying to help the top 2% come to find out, in non-economic terms we !*%!*$ ourselves because not only did it not and will not create jobs we are the wealthiest nation with the biggest wealth gap...
- 8,332
- 216
Nearsightedness.
I agree. Hasn't it been widely said that the reason the "stimulus" checks given didn't do anything was people saved them or paid for something they had previously purchased?Originally Posted by Cada5
Sure, ill bite.Originally Posted by cguy610
My post actually did have to do with creating jobs. It had to do with how the government could have taken steps that increased people's discretionary income by forcing the banks to offer no-cost refinances. If people had more discretionary income, they would be spending more and creating more demand for goods and services. Which in turn, would force businesses to hire more people to keep up with demand.Originally Posted by Cada5
I like how you asked me to explain what i quoted would create jobs. Your post that i quoted had nothing to do with creating jobs. More so how to stop bleeding the economy.
Nice strawman.
Edit: that should be discretionary income.
What makes you think in this economy people would take that extra money and put it to use buying non bare essential consumer goods?
I could just as easily make the argument that they would save that money and invest just to stay afloat.
Take corporate tax rates for example. You obviously are of the mind that corporations would simply pocket that extra cash and not put it back in to the economy by hiring and creating new jobs. Do you see what i'm getting at?
You want to create jobs? Re-open drilling in the gulf, thousands and thousands of jobs instantly. Allow the canadian pipeline to be built. Thousands of instant NEW jobs right there.
shatterkneesinc
Banned
- 22,524
- 2,383
how about we just gather a bunch of people, group them into whatever profession they belong to and all chip in to making an employee owned corporation
then merge with all the smaller competitors and form a giant corporation.
then merge with all the smaller competitors and form a giant corporation.
- 6,247
- 18
its gonna be just fine, just give Obama Another 4 years he'll get it done then!!!!!
Originally Posted by Cada5
Sure, ill bite.Originally Posted by cguy610
My post actually did have to do with creating jobs. It had to do with how the government could have taken steps that increased people's discretionary income by forcing the banks to offer no-cost refinances. If people had more discretionary income, they would be spending more and creating more demand for goods and services. Which in turn, would force businesses to hire more people to keep up with demand.Originally Posted by Cada5
I like how you asked me to explain what i quoted would create jobs. Your post that i quoted had nothing to do with creating jobs. More so how to stop bleeding the economy.
Nice strawman.
Edit: that should be discretionary income.
What makes you think in this economy people would take that extra money and put it to use buying non bare essential consumer goods?
I could just as easily make the argument that they would save that money and invest just to stay afloat.
Take corporate tax rates for example. You obviously are of the mind that corporations would simply pocket that extra cash and not put it back in to the economy by hiring and creating new jobs. Do you see what i'm getting at?
You want to create jobs? Re-open drilling in the gulf, thousands and thousands of jobs instantly. Allow the canadian pipeline to be built. Thousands of instant NEW jobs right there.
Cool. Let's have a legit discussion.
Americans have one of the lowest savings rates in the world. People will buy non-essential goods as incomes increase. Except for when you get into the very wealthy folks, they have a higher savings rate than people with lower incomes.
On corporate income tax rates: Corporate income taxes are paid only after the corporation has paid it's salaries and wages for employees. Therefore it is a very ineffective way of trying to boost hiring. Corporate income taxes are much different than personal income taxes. For example, the way a corporate income tax functions is like having a personal tax after people have bought all their necessities.
However, if we talk about lowering sales taxes, state and local taxes, and other above the line taxes, I am more likely to support them. However, corporate incomes are not the problem. Corporations have good profits. Corporate profits are up to pre-recession levels if I'm not mistaken.
On drilling in the Gulf: The result of additional drilling in the Gulf would be lower oil prices. Any additional supply put on the market will be offset by cuts in oil production by OPEC. In addition, oil companies have no incentive to lower oil prices because they are making record profits. This has more to do with the argument that allowing oil companies to drill everywhere and anywhere will lower oil prices or significantly increase jobs.
Anyways, isn't the government going to allow drilling in the Gulf. Wasn't this a temporary halt because of the BP spill?
Generally, this is not factual.
Code:
Personal saving as a percentage of disposable personal income was 5.0 percent in July,http://www.bea.gov/newsre...nal/pi/pinewsrelease.htm
You cited a July 2011 link. I was referring to this:
[h1][/h1]
[h1]Economists: Most Stimulus Went Into Savings[/h1]August 7, 2008, 3:52 PM ET
Matthew D. Shapiro and Joel Slemrod of the University of Michigan wrote the pre-eminent paper on the government’s 2001 stimulus payment.They have examined the preliminary data from the Bureau of EconomicAnalysis, and come to the conclusion that most of the 2008 stimuluspayments went into savings. In the following analysis provided to RealTime Economics, Messrs. Shapiro and Slemrod suggest a second round ofstimulus being considered by the government would be better spent oninfrastructure investments of payments to states:
Data for May and June suggest that the rebate payments provided bythe Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 may not yet have provided much of aboost to consumption. The increase in personal saving in May and Juneapproximately matched the size of the rebate checks in those months.
Source: Shapiro and Slemrod, University of Michigan
Here are the official numbers from the Bureau of Economic Analysis.Personal saving was $45.6 billion in May, compared to $48.1 billion instimulus payments in May. Personal saving in June was $23.0 billion,compared to $27.9 stimulus payments in June. In stark contrast,personal saving averaged only $2.9 billion per month during the firstfour months of the year.
The personal saving rate tells the same story. After running under0.5% during the first four months of 2008, it jumped to 4.9% in May and2.5% in June. The change in the personal saving rate correspondsclosely to the size of the rebate as a percentage of disposable income.The figure shows how most of the rebate payments appear to have gonestraight into saving.
The fact that personal saving jumped by nearly as much as theincrease in stimulus payments suggests that most of the rebate checkswere saved, at least temporarily, but does not establish itdefinitively because we cannot be sure what the level of personalconsumption expenditures would have been without the rebate checks. Ifpersonal consumption expenditures would have collapsed absent thestimulus payments while personal disposable income would have heldsteady, then the personal saving rate would have spiked up in May andJune in any event, and its sharp rise when the rebates arrived does notthen indicate that most of the rebate payments were saved.
That most of the rebate checks were saved is, though, consistentwith the results we find using the University of Michigan Survey ofConsumers. When consumers were asked whether their stimulus check wouldlead them to “mostly spend, mostly save, or mostly pay down debt,
- 2,148
- 649
This is all a cycle. Everything will be fine. What goes up, must come down. Nothing can grow infinitely. We will all come out of this, then we will be panicking about the next big scare lol
- 145
- 10
yeah you keep believing that
You cited a July 2011 link. I was referring to this:
[h1][/h1]
[h1]Economists: Most Stimulus Went Into Savings[/h1]August 7, 2008, 3:52 PM ET
Matthew D. Shapiro and Joel Slemrod of the University of Michigan wrote the pre-eminent paper on the government’s 2001 stimulus payment.They have examined the preliminary data from the Bureau of EconomicAnalysis, and come to the conclusion that most of the 2008 stimuluspayments went into savings. In the following analysis provided to RealTime Economics, Messrs. Shapiro and Slemrod suggest a second round ofstimulus being considered by the government would be better spent oninfrastructure investments of payments to states:
Data for May and June suggest that the rebate payments provided bythe Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 may not yet have provided much of aboost to consumption. The increase in personal saving in May and Juneapproximately matched the size of the rebate checks in those months.
Source: Shapiro and Slemrod, University of Michigan
Here are the official numbers from the Bureau of Economic Analysis.Personal saving was $45.6 billion in May, compared to $48.1 billion instimulus payments in May. Personal saving in June was $23.0 billion,compared to $27.9 stimulus payments in June. In stark contrast,personal saving averaged only $2.9 billion per month during the firstfour months of the year.
The personal saving rate tells the same story. After running under0.5% during the first four months of 2008, it jumped to 4.9% in May and2.5% in June. The change in the personal saving rate correspondsclosely to the size of the rebate as a percentage of disposable income.The figure shows how most of the rebate payments appear to have gonestraight into saving.
The fact that personal saving jumped by nearly as much as theincrease in stimulus payments suggests that most of the rebate checkswere saved, at least temporarily, but does not establish itdefinitively because we cannot be sure what the level of personalconsumption expenditures would have been without the rebate checks. Ifpersonal consumption expenditures would have collapsed absent thestimulus payments while personal disposable income would have heldsteady, then the personal saving rate would have spiked up in May andJune in any event, and its sharp rise when the rebates arrived does notthen indicate that most of the rebate payments were saved.
That most of the rebate checks were saved is, though, consistentwith the results we find using the University of Michigan Survey ofConsumers. When consumers were asked whether their stimulus check wouldlead them to “mostly spend, mostly save, or mostly pay down debt,
cada5
Banned
- 59
- 10
Originally Posted by cguy610
Cool. Let's have a legit discussion.
Americans have one of the lowest savings rates in the world. People will buy non-essential goods as incomes increase. Except for when you get into the very wealthy folks, they have a higher savings rate than people with lower incomes.
Thats all good in theory but I think you're understating the landscape we're in right now and overstating what a no cost refinance could mean to an average person. To your original point, people who would benefit from a no cost refinance are those who most likely have an underwater mortgage or two. These usually are not buying ipads, new clothes or appliances. The question I guess would be, how much of an impact this action by the government would make.
On corporate income tax rates: Corporate income taxes are paid only after the corporation has paid it's salaries and wages for employees. Therefore it is a very ineffective way of trying to boost hiring. Corporate income taxes are much different than personal income taxes. For example, the way a corporate income tax functions is like having a personal tax after people have bought all their necessities.
I never claimed lowering corporate taxes would solve our jobs problem. Nothing happens in a vacuum.
However, if we talk about lowering sales taxes, state and local taxes, and other above the line taxes, I am more likely to support them. However, corporate incomes are not the problem. Corporations have good profits. Corporate profits are up to pre-recession levels if I'm not mistaken.
The idea of lower corporate tax is to create incentive (much like your theory about no cost mortgage refinance and discretionary spending) to take that extra money and create jobs. Whats wrong with a competitive corporate tax rate, especially in a crappy economic landscape that we're seeing now?
On drilling in the Gulf: The result of additional drilling in the Gulf would be lower oil prices. Any additional supply put on the market will be offset by cuts in oil production by OPEC. In addition, oil companies have no incentive to lower oil prices because they are making record profits. This has more to do with the argument that allowing oil companies to drill everywhere and anywhere will lower oil prices or significantly increase jobs.
Its simple really, there are millions of people out of work and who don't work enough. Allowing more drilling in the gulf would make a significant impact on the surrounding economy. We're at 9% UE. Labor participation is at a 25 year low.
I like what sarah palin did in alaska. She spread the wealth a little by reimbursing the people of alaska for letting companies drill for oil on their land with a yearly check. I'd like to see something like this implemented nationally in times on stagnant, non-growth like today.
Anyways, isn't the government going to allow drilling in the Gulf. Wasn't this a temporary halt because of the BP spill?
There are thousands out of work as a result of the ban on drilling in some areas and a ban on new drilling exploration.
