Stimulus jobs certainly do exist

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

There are some good things funded too but that isnt the point. The point is that the vast majority of the spending is not real economic stimulus though it was sold and continues to be sold as such. People like Riot either dont know the difference, have never bothered to actually see what has been put in there or both.

That is the problem with politics. You obviously agree that stimulus was necessary. The problem with this package is that it was rushed. And the fact that it was rushed gave everyone an excuse to throw his/her pet project in.

But then again, there really wasnt an alternative. You can't blame Obama for all the pork thats in that package and you certainly can't blame it purely on democrats.

In my opinion, there simply was no choice.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

That is the problem with politics. You obviously agree that stimulus was necessary. The problem with this package is that it was rushed. And the fact that it was rushed gave everyone an excuse to throw his/her pet project in.

But then again, there really wasnt an alternative. You can't blame Obama for all the pork thats in that package and you certainly can't blame it purely on democrats.

In my opinion, there simply was no choice.

which is why i think there should be a line item veto. too much pork gets attached to necessary spending bills. and too true, it was rushed.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by GBBob

I think there is a tremendous grey line in every program in determining what is actually "stimlulus" and what is waste. The Cons want a quantitative new job figure posted for each appropriation. Ironically, the Dems see a "trickle down" effect that may not create an actual job, but still benefits the economy and the populace in the long run.
The debt is absolutely a concern..but eventually..oh.in 2 years, this will have a positive impact and the unemployment rate will continue to drop and the stock market will CONTINUE to climb and the Republicans will be back to bitching about gays, guns and abortion...Kinda' like the Republican nominee for Governor in Illinois. Welcome to the dark ages..or, welcome to the world of Bill Brady.

Makes you almost miss Allan Keyes

http://www.wgntv.com/news/wgntv-bill...,7842897.story

Brady, 48, is married with three children. His social conservatism is rooted in his Roman Catholic faith and upbringing. He supports a ban on abortion, including in cases of rape and incest, with an exception only when the mother's life is at stake.

In keeping with the wishes of the insurance industry — his hometown's largest private employer is State Farm Insurance Cos. — Brady has fought against government mandates for broader insurance coverage, including mammograms for women and longer hospital stays for postpartum mothers.

didn't they curse that suggestion when reagan talked about trickle down economics??

that guy brady sounds like quite a guy.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

That is the problem with politics. You obviously agree that stimulus was necessary. The problem with this package is that it was rushed. And the fact that it was rushed gave everyone an excuse to throw his/her pet project in.

But then again, there really wasnt an alternative. You can't blame Obama for all the pork thats in that package and you certainly can't blame it purely on democrats.

In my opinion, there simply was no choice.

While I understand political realities play a role this is like trading Allen Iverson for the other teams number #1 picks for the next 30 years. Maybe you needed a little scoring now but this isnt going to end pretty.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by GBBob

I think there is a tremendous grey line in every program in determining what is actually "stimlulus" and what is waste. The Cons want a quantitative new job figure posted for each appropriation. Ironically, the Dems see a "trickle down" effect that may not create an actual job, but still benefits the economy and the populace in the long run.
The debt is absolutely a concern..but eventually..oh.in 2 years, this will have a positive impact and the unemployment rate will continue to drop and the stock market will CONTINUE to climb and the Republicans will be back to bitching about gays, guns and abortion....[/b][/i]

This is a new defense...

It is actually called throw enough **** against the wall and hope some sticks...

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

You are consistent at the very least. I gave you a link but that wasnt enough for you. You want specifics? It is an $800 billion package. How about you run through quick and show me where I was wrong?

How about you do your own homework?

You posted an opinion. I asked for you to say why. You can't deliver. You said:

such a huge portion of the money went to non stimulus area's.
a huge expansion of unsustainable (without future stimulus spending) social programs and temporary fixes.

Sorry. That's not readily apparent from the list you posted. Pick out which line items you are talking about.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

How about you do your own homework?

You posted an opinion. I asked for you to say why. You can't deliver. You said:



Sorry. That's not readily apparent from the list you posted. Pick out which line items you are talking about.

Stop avoiding the issue

Do my homework? Just click on the link. Is that too much to ask?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

There are some good things funded too but that isnt the point. The point is that the vast majority of the spending is not real economic stimulus though it was sold and continues to be sold as such. People like Riot either dont know the difference, have never bothered to actually see what has been put in there or both.

No, the point is that when you state something as fact, but are then asked to provide proof, simply restating your opinion as a fact, then saying the person asking you to put up just can't see it, isn't any support or proof at all.

You know, in the "adult" world

[Riot]

While surely there are people in need, spending close to 20 billion on food stamps does not help create economic growth

20 billion in sales in the food/grocery industry doesn't count as "economic growth"?

Think of those "jobs saved" that don't exist ... checkout people, aisle stockers, delivery truck drivers, warehouse workers, more truck drivers, produce farm workers.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

20 billion in sales in the food/grocery industry doesn't count as "economic growth"?

Think of those "jobs saved" that don't exist ... checkout people, aisle stockers, delivery truck drivers, warehouse workers, more truck drivers, produce farm workers.

I just dont know how to respond.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by GBBob

..Kinda' like the Republican nominee for Governor in Illinois. Welcome to the dark ages..or, welcome to the world of Bill Brady.

Sigh ... I miss Illinois. You always knew where your Governor would be after his term was over

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

No, the point is that when you state something as fact, but are then asked to provide proof, simply restating your opinion as a fact, then saying the person asking you to put up just can't see it, isn't any support or proof at all.

You know, in the "adult" world

What is proof to you?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I just dont know how to respond.

Because all you see is someone getting food stamps.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

Because all you see is someone getting food stamps.

I quite understand the process. But you arent creating anything sustaining. It is a temporary fix. When the 19 billion runs out you are back in the same place you were before and will need more "stimulus". You aren't stimulating anything, you are subsidizing it.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

What is proof to you?

Pick out more of what you think are, "huge portions of money that went to non stimulus areas, huge expansion of unsustainable social programs and temporary fixes."

You see food stamps and see "entitlement". I see a whole chain of people that didn't lose jobs. Economic growth in the sense of expansion? Nope. But certainly, in a terrible economy, a contracting economy, there are economic benefits to keeping people working, and spending (paying rent, mortgage, buying food, etc); and also to not having those among us, in the highest unemployment, starve.

Yes, it's a subsidy, but one that keeps the economic engines humming. It means independent producers don't go out of business (forever) - in KY my local Kroger does buy local produce, too - and all the associated people keep spending their paychecks, buying gas and food, etc.

It buys time, yes - for the economy to get back to some stability (even mentally for people so they will spend) and thus, when the $19 million runs out - the grounds for growth and future expansion remain rather than disappear.

You know there have been multiple extensions of unemployment benefits over the past year - people are getting unemployment - and food stamp benefits - far longer than ever before in our history. In previous times they would have been out of luck on the entitlements, and still unemployed. Would you have them not receive this assistance? And there are more people receiving it nowadays, too.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

Pick out more of what you think are, "huge portions of money that went to non stimulus areas, huge expansion of unsustainable social programs and temporary fixes."

You see food stamps and see "entitlement". I see a whole chain of people that didn't lose jobs. Economic growth in the sense of expansion? Nope. But certainly, in a terrible economy, there are economic benefits to keeping people working, and spending (paying rent, mortgage, buying food, etc); and also to not having those among us, in the highest unemployment, starve.

Food stamps arent part of a social program and arent a temporary fix?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Food stamps arent part of a social program and arent a temporary fix?

Fine - you see food stamps as, "huge expansion of unsustainable social programs and temporary fixes."

I see them as, indeed, economic stimulus. Food stamps for the number of people on them now will not have to be sustained and are not intended as a permanent expansion of the program (given as the economy recovers); and I gave my argument for the many long-term benefits of what you dismiss as a "temporary fix".

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

It buys time, yes - for the economy to get back to some stability (even mentally for people so they will spend) and thus, when the $19 million runs out - the grounds for growth and future expansion remain rather than disappear.

What?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

You know there have been multiple extensions of unemployment benefits over the past year - people are getting unemployment - and food stamp benefits - far longer than ever before in our history. In previous times they would have been out of luck on the entitlements, and still unemployed. Would you have them not receive this assistance? And there are more people receiving it nowadays, too.

This has nothing to do with the discussion

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

Fine - you see food stamps as, "huge expansion of unsustainable social programs and temporary fixes."

I see them as, indeed, economic stimulus. Food stamps for the number of people on them now will not have to be sustained and are not intended as a permanent expansion of the program (given as the economy recovers); and I gave my argument for the many long-term benefits of what you dismiss as a "temporary fix".

19 billion worth of food stamps is exactly what i said it is. An expansion of a social program and a temporary fix. Your little synopsis of the food chain is cute but food stamps are not going to grow anything. Your assumption that the expansion of the food stamp program will ever recede is simply political niavety.