USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
ObamaRama 8
- Thread starter ScottM
- Start date
- Status
Re: ObamaRama 8
So what you guys think of the latest Fed action on creating a variable CD for banks to "park" and drain cash from the economy?
At face value it seems moronic for Fed to lend to them at almost 0% interest and turn around and let them get CD like rates of 3-5%. kinda see why they want to do this for the balance sheet of the banks but gee wheez talk about paying the crooks more free money. I wish my bank would pay me money to borrow from them.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Fed-e...2.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=3&asset=&ccode=
So what you guys think of the latest Fed action on creating a variable CD for banks to "park" and drain cash from the economy?
At face value it seems moronic for Fed to lend to them at almost 0% interest and turn around and let them get CD like rates of 3-5%. kinda see why they want to do this for the balance sheet of the banks but gee wheez talk about paying the crooks more free money. I wish my bank would pay me money to borrow from them.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Fed-e...2.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=3&asset=&ccode=
Re: ObamaRama 8
I wholeheartedly disagree. I would argue that SSDI and social government-administered welfare programs have taken a far greater toll on our country's economic situation.
While I'm not a fan of the government having their fingerprints all over the Fed and its supposedly-independent fiscal policy making, the Fed in and of itself is a private entity. If not for the Fed, another bank would be in its place.
SSDI and general welfare programs have decimated the middle-lower and lower classes, making them financially dependent on government handouts and have bred generations of people that have become so inept at providing for themselves and their families that the financial impact has crept into all facets of local economic policy. It is obviously no secret that these programs have become a drain on state and local governments. Until there are strings attached to these government programs the financial drain will continue to siphon more and more money out of taxpayer's pockets.
I wholeheartedly disagree. I would argue that SSDI and social government-administered welfare programs have taken a far greater toll on our country's economic situation.
While I'm not a fan of the government having their fingerprints all over the Fed and its supposedly-independent fiscal policy making, the Fed in and of itself is a private entity. If not for the Fed, another bank would be in its place.
SSDI and general welfare programs have decimated the middle-lower and lower classes, making them financially dependent on government handouts and have bred generations of people that have become so inept at providing for themselves and their families that the financial impact has crept into all facets of local economic policy. It is obviously no secret that these programs have become a drain on state and local governments. Until there are strings attached to these government programs the financial drain will continue to siphon more and more money out of taxpayer's pockets.
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: ObamaRama 8
That's pretty funny considering that SSDI and general welfare have nothing to do with the booms and busts that have decimated the economy over the last decade or so. And, they also don't have that much to do with the decimation of the treasury, since most of those programs aren't considered discretionary spending at this time. Not only that but they actually collect taxes for those things, whereas a President wants to start a war and all of the sudden Americans don't have to pay for it. Probably because it's easier to get reelected if Americans aren't voting their pocketbooks because you actually billed them for your choices as President.
But you go ahead and blame the homeless for the financial issues if it makes you feel good. I'm sure not doing anything for the least of us would make the United States a much nicer place to live.
That's pretty funny considering that SSDI and general welfare have nothing to do with the booms and busts that have decimated the economy over the last decade or so. And, they also don't have that much to do with the decimation of the treasury, since most of those programs aren't considered discretionary spending at this time. Not only that but they actually collect taxes for those things, whereas a President wants to start a war and all of the sudden Americans don't have to pay for it. Probably because it's easier to get reelected if Americans aren't voting their pocketbooks because you actually billed them for your choices as President.
But you go ahead and blame the homeless for the financial issues if it makes you feel good. I'm sure not doing anything for the least of us would make the United States a much nicer place to live.
Re: ObamaRama 8
Yep, I'm sure generations of people not working and still getting theirs at the expense of the taxpayers hasn't hurt the economy one bit. Social Security is going broke, yet the gov't refuses to do anything about it. SSDI abuse is rampant. And general welfare programs are bankrupting the state, primarily because there's no motivation for the majority of recipients to get a job and starting paying into the system instead of welching off of it. It has gotten to the point where the federal government is giving money to the states to keep their social welfare programs alive (see: health care bill, stimulus bill).
The booms and busts will happen again--many times, there's nothing that can be done to avoid them due to the emotion and falliability of people. However, those booms and busts will continue to get worse when you continue to permanently add people to the public dole. Every year, the percentage of people on the government dime goes up. If that trend continues, the country will eventually go bankrupt. It is only a matter of time. Tough love, for lack of a better term, is the only way to get America--and the states in particular--financially back on track.
The decimation of the Treasury is occurring because it continues to borrow money to the federal government. Why? I have no clue. As a former bank loan officer, if I saw the numbers the government is sporting with regards to debt-to-income, I'd probably laugh Uncle Sam out the door. Sad but true. Once the Federal Reserve Bank got in bed with the government, it was all over.
And you don't need to lecture me about "the least of us".....I have a sister with cerebral palsy. We do need to take care of the least among us. But even with her disability, she is able to work a couple hours a week at a local vet clinic. She may never be completely self-sufficient, but I can guarantee you that hundreds of thousands of able-bodied people are on SSDI and/or general welfare that could be out working menial jobs while paying into or taking less from the system. Welfare programs should be a safety net, not a lifestyle. You should be ashamed to be on welfare. You should want more for yourself and your family than for the 1st of the month to roll around. And until these premises are drilled into the minds of those who willing live off of the taxpayers, this situation will continue to worsen.
Yep, I'm sure generations of people not working and still getting theirs at the expense of the taxpayers hasn't hurt the economy one bit. Social Security is going broke, yet the gov't refuses to do anything about it. SSDI abuse is rampant. And general welfare programs are bankrupting the state, primarily because there's no motivation for the majority of recipients to get a job and starting paying into the system instead of welching off of it. It has gotten to the point where the federal government is giving money to the states to keep their social welfare programs alive (see: health care bill, stimulus bill).
The booms and busts will happen again--many times, there's nothing that can be done to avoid them due to the emotion and falliability of people. However, those booms and busts will continue to get worse when you continue to permanently add people to the public dole. Every year, the percentage of people on the government dime goes up. If that trend continues, the country will eventually go bankrupt. It is only a matter of time. Tough love, for lack of a better term, is the only way to get America--and the states in particular--financially back on track.
The decimation of the Treasury is occurring because it continues to borrow money to the federal government. Why? I have no clue. As a former bank loan officer, if I saw the numbers the government is sporting with regards to debt-to-income, I'd probably laugh Uncle Sam out the door. Sad but true. Once the Federal Reserve Bank got in bed with the government, it was all over.
And you don't need to lecture me about "the least of us".....I have a sister with cerebral palsy. We do need to take care of the least among us. But even with her disability, she is able to work a couple hours a week at a local vet clinic. She may never be completely self-sufficient, but I can guarantee you that hundreds of thousands of able-bodied people are on SSDI and/or general welfare that could be out working menial jobs while paying into or taking less from the system. Welfare programs should be a safety net, not a lifestyle. You should be ashamed to be on welfare. You should want more for yourself and your family than for the 1st of the month to roll around. And until these premises are drilled into the minds of those who willing live off of the taxpayers, this situation will continue to worsen.
Last edited:
Re: ObamaRama 8
Not sure where I blamed the unemployment rate on the workers, but......
The rising numbers of Americans on public assistance doesn't directly correlate to the current economic situation. Obviously, it has created a spike in people currently receiving benefits......it would be like the global warming "hockey stick", only the graph is "high sticking"......meaning, while there has been a noticeable recent uptick, the number of Americans on the government dole has been increasing since the inception of each respective program. Which, if I'm not mistaken, is the opposite of the results the programs were intended to accomplish.
Unemployment insurance is a good example of a government program with strings attached. Your benefits run out after a period of time. Of course, Obama continues to increase the amounts of the payments and the period of time in which one remains eligible for said benefits. Which is, I guess, completely expected of the Obama Administration.
Not sure where I blamed the unemployment rate on the workers, but......
The rising numbers of Americans on public assistance doesn't directly correlate to the current economic situation. Obviously, it has created a spike in people currently receiving benefits......it would be like the global warming "hockey stick", only the graph is "high sticking".
.....meaning, while there has been a noticeable recent uptick, the number of Americans on the government dole has been increasing since the inception of each respective program. Which, if I'm not mistaken, is the opposite of the results the programs were intended to accomplish. Unemployment insurance is a good example of a government program with strings attached. Your benefits run out after a period of time. Of course, Obama continues to increase the amounts of the payments and the period of time in which one remains eligible for said benefits. Which is, I guess, completely expected of the Obama Administration.
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: ObamaRama 8
Bush would have done the same thing. Extending unemployment benefits is often considered stimulus and good economic policy.
Not sure where I blamed the unemployment rate on the workers, but......
The rising numbers of Americans on public assistance doesn't directly correlate to the current economic situation. Obviously, it has created a spike in people currently receiving benefits......it would be like the global warming "hockey stick", only the graph is "high sticking".
Unemployment insurance is a good example of a government program with strings attached. Your benefits run out after a period of time. Of course, Obama continues to increase the amounts of the payments and the period of time in which one remains eligible for said benefits. Which is, I guess, completely expected of the Obama Administration.
Bush would have done the same thing. Extending unemployment benefits is often considered stimulus and good economic policy.
Re: ObamaRama 8
He told you that?
What makes me nervous is that unemployment benefits continue to be increased and extended while at the same time there seems to be little effort to increase jobs.
He told you that?
What makes me nervous is that unemployment benefits continue to be increased and extended while at the same time there seems to be little effort to increase jobs.
Re: ObamaRama 8
Last time I checked, there are 6 job seekers for every available job - the highest rate in a looong time. It's not like those who are unemployed can simply remedy that situation with hard work. Unemployment checks aren't exactly a fat and sassy lifestyle, but they do allow for unemployed people to continue making basic purchases - which both helps them as individuals and keeps their spending in the economy (preventing the economy from getting worse, making it even harder to find a job).
This is one of those areas of economics where no one really disagrees.
Last time I checked, there are 6 job seekers for every available job - the highest rate in a looong time. It's not like those who are unemployed can simply remedy that situation with hard work. Unemployment checks aren't exactly a fat and sassy lifestyle, but they do allow for unemployed people to continue making basic purchases - which both helps them as individuals and keeps their spending in the economy (preventing the economy from getting worse, making it even harder to find a job).
This is one of those areas of economics where no one really disagrees.
Re: ObamaRama 8
Out of curiosity, when unemployment was below 5%, what was the number of job seekers per job? I haven't seen that number bounced around, and I'm not saying you're wrong, but IIRC, the pundits were commenting that anything below 5% was considered "total employment", as the people making up the "unemployed" weren't considered to be "active job seekers".
Also, the lack of jobs for the leeches of society wouldn't exist if we had tougher immigration laws/enforcement. The millions of illegals here in the U.S. aren't sitting around doing nothing.....many of them are working jobs in construction, hospitality, etc. Jobs that could and should be worked by the hundreds of thousands of lazy Americans that have been soaking the system for years.
I'm not saying that people on unemployment aren't deserving.....they are, and that safety net SHOULD be there. But at least there's a limitation on how long UI beneficiaries get propped up by the system. Similar limitations need to be developed and applied to food stamps, general welfare funding, Section 8 housing, Medicaid, etc.
Cue South Park: "Dey took 'er jeeobbs!"
Out of curiosity, when unemployment was below 5%, what was the number of job seekers per job? I haven't seen that number bounced around, and I'm not saying you're wrong, but IIRC, the pundits were commenting that anything below 5% was considered "total employment", as the people making up the "unemployed" weren't considered to be "active job seekers".
Also, the lack of jobs for the leeches of society wouldn't exist if we had tougher immigration laws/enforcement. The millions of illegals here in the U.S. aren't sitting around doing nothing.....many of them are working jobs in construction, hospitality, etc. Jobs that could and should be worked by the hundreds of thousands of lazy Americans that have been soaking the system for years.
I'm not saying that people on unemployment aren't deserving.....they are, and that safety net SHOULD be there. But at least there's a limitation on how long UI beneficiaries get propped up by the system. Similar limitations need to be developed and applied to food stamps, general welfare funding, Section 8 housing, Medicaid, etc.
Cue South Park: "Dey took 'er jeeobbs!"
Re: ObamaRama 8
Article (from Casey Research) on what may very well happen based upon what the Fed is doing:
---------------------------------------------------------
Hyperinflation Watch
By James Turk
December 23, 2009 – Contrary to common belief, hyperinflation does not arise from too much bank lending. The sole cause of hyperinflation is always too much government spending. The pattern is as follows.
The government spends more money than it is receiving in taxes, which forces it to borrow. As these deficits grow, they eventually exceed the market’s capacity or willingness to lend money to the government. Invariably, the central bank steps in and provides the government with the money it needs by creating it – as the saying goes – ‘out of thin air’, or what governments today call “quantitative easing”. The central bank does this in either of two ways.
In cash currency economies, where most commerce is completed by making payments with paper-currency, the central bank cranks up the printing press. Examples are the Weimar Germany hyperinflation in the early 1920s, and just recently, Zimbabwe.
In deposit-currency economies, where most commerce is conducted by making payments through the banking system with checks, wire transfers, plastic cards, and the like, the central bank uses electronic bookkeeping made possible through computers to put the newly created money directly into the government’s checking account. There are numerous examples of deposit-currency hyperinflation in the monetary history of Latin America, like the one that devastated Argentina in 1991.
These two different ways in which hyperinflation manifests itself are made clear in the following quote by Ben Bernanke before he was appointed chairman of the Federal Reserve: “The U.S. government has a technology, called a printing press (or today, its electronic equivalent), that allows it to produce as many U.S. dollars as it wishes at no cost.”
There is of course a cost. There may not be one to the US government, but instead, the cost will be borne by everyone who holds dollars and loses purchasing power as a result of Mr. Bernanke creating as many dollars as the government wants to spend. The other word for this cost is inflation.
With this background, the US government’s financial position makes clear that it is heading toward an Argentine-style deposit currency hyperinflation. The first two months of the US government’s current fiscal year have resulted in a record $296.7 billion deficit. During this period, the Federal Reserve grew its balance sheet by about $65 billion, in effect purchasing about 22% of the federal government’s new debt. These purchases clearly show the Fed’s policy of “quantitative easing”.
Unless the gap between receipts and expenditures is closed, there will be hyperinflation. Policymakers seem to believe that they can close this gap by jumpstarting the moribund US economy, so that government receipts can again begin to grow and eventually catch-up to, and perhaps exceed expenditures. But they are pursuing a dangerous path because the rising expenditures by the federal government are increasing its debt, causing more quantitative easing by the Federal Reserve, which in effect is pouring more fuel on the potential hyperinflationary fire.
Much has been made of the huge bank excess reserves “sitting idle” at the Fed. It has been said that hyperinflation is not possible when the banks are sitting on such huge reserves, instead of lending them into the economy. This thinking is flawed because it ignores that there are two sides to the Federal Reserve’s balance sheet. Those reserves are not just sitting there, as if they were in a vacuum. These reserves have funded the Fed’s purchase of US government debt, putting it and the US dollar on the road to hyperinflation.
Article (from Casey Research) on what may very well happen based upon what the Fed is doing:
---------------------------------------------------------
Hyperinflation Watch
By James Turk
December 23, 2009 – Contrary to common belief, hyperinflation does not arise from too much bank lending. The sole cause of hyperinflation is always too much government spending. The pattern is as follows.
The government spends more money than it is receiving in taxes, which forces it to borrow. As these deficits grow, they eventually exceed the market’s capacity or willingness to lend money to the government. Invariably, the central bank steps in and provides the government with the money it needs by creating it – as the saying goes – ‘out of thin air’, or what governments today call “quantitative easing”. The central bank does this in either of two ways.
In cash currency economies, where most commerce is completed by making payments with paper-currency, the central bank cranks up the printing press. Examples are the Weimar Germany hyperinflation in the early 1920s, and just recently, Zimbabwe.
In deposit-currency economies, where most commerce is conducted by making payments through the banking system with checks, wire transfers, plastic cards, and the like, the central bank uses electronic bookkeeping made possible through computers to put the newly created money directly into the government’s checking account. There are numerous examples of deposit-currency hyperinflation in the monetary history of Latin America, like the one that devastated Argentina in 1991.
These two different ways in which hyperinflation manifests itself are made clear in the following quote by Ben Bernanke before he was appointed chairman of the Federal Reserve: “The U.S. government has a technology, called a printing press (or today, its electronic equivalent), that allows it to produce as many U.S. dollars as it wishes at no cost.”
There is of course a cost. There may not be one to the US government, but instead, the cost will be borne by everyone who holds dollars and loses purchasing power as a result of Mr. Bernanke creating as many dollars as the government wants to spend. The other word for this cost is inflation.
With this background, the US government’s financial position makes clear that it is heading toward an Argentine-style deposit currency hyperinflation. The first two months of the US government’s current fiscal year have resulted in a record $296.7 billion deficit. During this period, the Federal Reserve grew its balance sheet by about $65 billion, in effect purchasing about 22% of the federal government’s new debt. These purchases clearly show the Fed’s policy of “quantitative easing”.
Unless the gap between receipts and expenditures is closed, there will be hyperinflation. Policymakers seem to believe that they can close this gap by jumpstarting the moribund US economy, so that government receipts can again begin to grow and eventually catch-up to, and perhaps exceed expenditures. But they are pursuing a dangerous path because the rising expenditures by the federal government are increasing its debt, causing more quantitative easing by the Federal Reserve, which in effect is pouring more fuel on the potential hyperinflationary fire.
Much has been made of the huge bank excess reserves “sitting idle” at the Fed. It has been said that hyperinflation is not possible when the banks are sitting on such huge reserves, instead of lending them into the economy. This thinking is flawed because it ignores that there are two sides to the Federal Reserve’s balance sheet. Those reserves are not just sitting there, as if they were in a vacuum. These reserves have funded the Fed’s purchase of US government debt, putting it and the US dollar on the road to hyperinflation.
Re: ObamaRama 8
Why shouldn't the limitations on unemployment benefits respond to the circumstances?
Here's the job seekers per job stat:
http://www.epi.org/publications/entry/6.1_job_seekers_per_job_opening_in_september/
Out of curiosity, when unemployment was below 5%, what was the number of job seekers per job? I haven't seen that number bounced around, and I'm not saying you're wrong, but IIRC, the pundits were commenting that anything below 5% was considered "total employment", as the people making up the "unemployed" weren't considered to be "active job seekers".
Also, the lack of jobs for the leeches of society wouldn't exist if we had tougher immigration laws/enforcement. The millions of illegals here in the U.S. aren't sitting around doing nothing.....many of them are working jobs in construction, hospitality, etc. Jobs that could and should be worked by the hundreds of thousands of lazy Americans that have been soaking the system for years.
I'm not saying that people on unemployment aren't deserving.....they are, and that safety net SHOULD be there. But at least there's a limitation on how long UI beneficiaries get propped up by the system. Similar limitations need to be developed and applied to food stamps, general welfare funding, Section 8 housing, Medicaid, etc.
Cue South Park: "Dey took 'er jeeobbs!"
Why shouldn't the limitations on unemployment benefits respond to the circumstances?
Here's the job seekers per job stat:
http://www.epi.org/publications/entry/6.1_job_seekers_per_job_opening_in_september/
The latest report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) on the Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey (JOLTS) showed that job openings increased by 57,000 in September to a total of 2.5 million. However, other BLS data show that at the same time, the number of unemployed workers increased by 214,000 to 15.1 million. There were thus 12.7 million more unemployed workers than job openings in September, or 6.1 job seekers per available job (see chart below). This was little changed from August, when the ratio was 6.2 to one. Given the large number of job seekers per job opening, it is not surprising that the labor market is seeing record rates of long-term unemployment.
Re: ObamaRama 8
So essentially what we're looking at is an increase in unemployed Americans, and a decrease in job openings. Which makes sense. Thanks for digging that up for me, 'ski.
However, that black-and-white scenario begs the question: When will we see policies (not one-time funding) that are designed to create jobs? From where I'm sitting, all I can see is that there will have to be another massive stimulus package created to "save" the "millions" of jobs that the 2009 Stimulus "saved". Because as far as the numbers are concerned, the economy isn't producing the new jobs necessary to lower the unemployment rate. I'm sick of hearing about "saved" jobs, because that isn't helping the thousands of Americans who are losing their jobs every week.
And if that continues to be case, states will be filing bankruptcy left and right due to the massive overload on the welfare programs and the federal government will be paying through the nose to keep unemployment benefits flowing. Which will in turn lead to increased taxes on businesses and individuals to fund these programs. Which will further reduce investment in U.S. business/industry. It just simply is not a sustainable trajectory for the country or individual states.
If anyone has an alternate ending to this situation, please enlighten me. Because I'm not seeing it.
So essentially what we're looking at is an increase in unemployed Americans, and a decrease in job openings. Which makes sense. Thanks for digging that up for me, 'ski.
However, that black-and-white scenario begs the question: When will we see policies (not one-time funding) that are designed to create jobs? From where I'm sitting, all I can see is that there will have to be another massive stimulus package created to "save" the "millions" of jobs that the 2009 Stimulus "saved". Because as far as the numbers are concerned, the economy isn't producing the new jobs necessary to lower the unemployment rate. I'm sick of hearing about "saved" jobs, because that isn't helping the thousands of Americans who are losing their jobs every week.
And if that continues to be case, states will be filing bankruptcy left and right due to the massive overload on the welfare programs and the federal government will be paying through the nose to keep unemployment benefits flowing. Which will in turn lead to increased taxes on businesses and individuals to fund these programs. Which will further reduce investment in U.S. business/industry. It just simply is not a sustainable trajectory for the country or individual states.
If anyone has an alternate ending to this situation, please enlighten me. Because I'm not seeing it.
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: ObamaRama 8
You wanna pay for everything stop sending money overseas. Paid for. Next.
So essentially what we're looking at is an increase in unemployed Americans, and a decrease in job openings. Which makes sense. Thanks for digging that up for me, 'ski.
However, that black-and-white scenario begs the question: When will we see policies (not one-time funding) that are designed to create jobs? From where I'm sitting, all I can see is that there will have to be another massive stimulus package created to "save" the "millions" of jobs that the 2009 Stimulus "saved". Because as far as the numbers are concerned, the economy isn't producing the new jobs necessary to lower the unemployment rate. I'm sick of hearing about "saved" jobs, because that isn't helping the thousands of Americans who are losing their jobs every week.
And if that continues to be case, states will be filing bankruptcy left and right due to the massive overload on the welfare programs and the federal government will be paying through the nose to keep unemployment benefits flowing. Which will in turn lead to increased taxes on businesses and individuals to fund these programs. Which will further reduce investment in U.S. business/industry. It just simply is not a sustainable trajectory for the country or individual states.
If anyone has an alternate ending to this situation, please enlighten me. Because I'm not seeing it.
You wanna pay for everything stop sending money overseas. Paid for. Next.
Re: ObamaRama 8
Isolationist policies? In a global economy? Good luck. Our markets would crash and China would destroy the U.S. dollar by tomorrow morning if we announced that we were keeping all investments exclusively domestic.
Try again.
Isolationist policies? In a global economy? Good luck. Our markets would crash and China would destroy the U.S. dollar by tomorrow morning if we announced that we were keeping all investments exclusively domestic.
Try again.
Re: ObamaRama 8
Well I've to agree about the welfare disincentive. but you need to stop the corporate welfare 1st, that money just goes directly to the bonuses at the top and never really goes into the economy.
Like the $50billion for oil companies, $100billion? for corporate farmers.
And the current $2trillion loan by Federal Reserve Bank to other banks/hedgefund like Goldman Sachs.
So what do you think about 0% interest loans and we pay them to keep that loan open? It's a maxed out credit card with 0% rate and 3%-6% cash back with open payment policy. If we really wanted to prop up housing we should give that loan to every home owners 0% interest. That would be about $6trillion I believe.
So we give corporate welfare to the individuals (jobs)at $30,000/yr ... that $30billion interest payment can "employ" 300,000 persons. And yes these blokes will be paying taxes on that $30,000/yr income and they will keep our economy going which is 60-70% consumer spending.
So if you shift all that corporate welfare $300billion/yr that could pay 3,000,000 unemployed $30,000/yr to watch tv and surf the net.
Employee 3million directly who pays taxes OR we "save" xxx thousands indirectly via trickle down corporate welfare who also pays taxes:maybe if they make money and don't have a gazillion tax writeoffs.
I'm @$@%ing jealous. I want that 0% rate with 3% cash back with $1million maxed out credit card.
Well I've to agree about the welfare disincentive. but you need to stop the corporate welfare 1st, that money just goes directly to the bonuses at the top and never really goes into the economy.
Like the $50billion for oil companies, $100billion? for corporate farmers.
And the current $2trillion loan by Federal Reserve Bank to other banks/hedgefund like Goldman Sachs.
So what do you think about 0% interest loans and we pay them to keep that loan open? It's a maxed out credit card with 0% rate and 3%-6% cash back with open payment policy. If we really wanted to prop up housing we should give that loan to every home owners 0% interest. That would be about $6trillion I believe.
So we give corporate welfare to the individuals (jobs)at $30,000/yr ... that $30billion interest payment can "employ" 300,000 persons. And yes these blokes will be paying taxes on that $30,000/yr income and they will keep our economy going which is 60-70% consumer spending.
So if you shift all that corporate welfare $300billion/yr that could pay 3,000,000 unemployed $30,000/yr to watch tv and surf the net.
Employee 3million directly who pays taxes OR we "save" xxx thousands indirectly via trickle down corporate welfare who also pays taxes:maybe if they make money and don't have a gazillion tax writeoffs.
I'm @$@%ing jealous. I want that 0% rate with 3% cash back with $1million maxed out credit card.
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: ObamaRama 8
Yeah, but Plante likes Corporate welfare. Notice he isn't mentioning that, he's mentioning all the lazy *** workers. After all they're the idiots that brought the economy down and screwed everyone over.
Yeah, but Plante likes Corporate welfare. Notice he isn't mentioning that, he's mentioning all the lazy *** workers. After all they're the idiots that brought the economy down and screwed everyone over.
Patman
Rodent of Unusual Size
Re: ObamaRama 8
Lets be blunt here... there is no re-inventing of the wheel... that proved correct in the derivatives crisis and this will prove correct in the coming inflation scenario.
IMO, Obama and other socialists want to set it up so that there is enough in welfare and communitarian expenditures so that the lower rungs aren't so affected and so that the rest are equalized towards the middle. Also, recall that none of the effects of inflation is exactly wrong to them since every program that they want to create and utilize is a social imperative and an absolute societal right... as a result it must be paid for no matter how it may harm our economic system.... after all, to them the economic system itself produces immoral results and as a result is immoral.
Lets be blunt here... there is no re-inventing of the wheel... that proved correct in the derivatives crisis and this will prove correct in the coming inflation scenario.
IMO, Obama and other socialists want to set it up so that there is enough in welfare and communitarian expenditures so that the lower rungs aren't so affected and so that the rest are equalized towards the middle. Also, recall that none of the effects of inflation is exactly wrong to them since every program that they want to create and utilize is a social imperative and an absolute societal right... as a result it must be paid for no matter how it may harm our economic system.... after all, to them the economic system itself produces immoral results and as a result is immoral.
- Status